archaeology and conservation

8/6/2019 Archaeology and Conservation

1/11http://www.jstor.org

Archaeologists on Conservation: How Codes of Archaeological Ethics and Professional

Standards Treat Conservation

Author(s): Susan I. Rotroff

Source: Journal of the American Institute for Conservation, Vol. 40, No. 2, (Summer, 2001),

pp. 137-146

Published by: The American Institute for Conservation of Historic & Artistic Works

Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3180027

Accessed: 20/07/2008 15:32

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless

you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you

may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained athttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=aic.

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed

page of such transmission.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit organization founded in 1995 to build trusted digital archives for scholarship. We work with the

scholarly community to preserve their work and the materials they rely upon, and to build a common research platform that

promotes the discovery and use of these resources. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].
http://www.jstor.org/stable/3180027?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=aichttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=aichttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/3180027?origin=JSTOR-pdf


2/11

ARCHAEOLOGISTS ON CONSERVATION:HOW CODES OF ARCHAEOLOGICAL ETHICS AND PROFESSIONAL

STANDARDS TREAT CONSERVATION

SUSAN I. ROTROFF

ABSTRACT-Object conservators work within avariety of contexts.Although they are guided by theirown code of professional standards,their work is alsoaffected by the codes and practices of the otherprofessionals with whom they work. This articleexamines the attention given to conservation in theprofessional codes, standards, and guidelines of thethree largest archaeological societies in the UnitedStates-the Archaeological Institute of America, theSociety for American Archaeology, and the Societyfor Historical Archaeology-and of the Register ofProfessional Archaeologists, an organization devotedto the maintenance of professional standards inarchaeology. It also discusses the treatment of conser-vation in guidelines developed by the AmericanSchool of Classical Studies at Athens and by theAmerican Schools of Oriental Research, whichsponsor American excavations in Greece and theNear East. The purpose is to provide conservatorswith information on the attitudes toward conserva-tion that are shared by the archaeologists with whomthey collaborate, especially in the context ofexcavation.TITRE-Comment les arch6ologues perfoivent larestauration: une discussion sur la facon dont lescodes d6ontologiques et les normes professionnellesen arch6ologie representent notre discipline.RESUME-Les restaurateurs d'objets doiventtravailler dans une vari6et de contextes. Bien qu'ilssoient guides par leur propre codes des normesprofessionnelles, leur travail est egalement affecte parles codes et pratiques des autres professionnels aveclesquels ils travaillent. Dans cet article, on discute del'attention donn6e au domaine de la restauration dansles codes professionnels, normes et directives des troisplus grandes societes arch6ologiques aux Etats-Unis:Archaeological Institute of America (institutarcheologique d'Amerique), Society for AmericanArchaeology (soci&etpour l'arch6ologie americaine)et Society for Historical Archaeology (societe pourl'archeologie historique). On ajoute aussi a cette listele Register of Professional Archaeologists (registre

des archeologues professionnels), une organisationconsacr6e au maintien des normes professionnelles enarch6ologie. Enfin on y discute des directives sur larestauration qui ont ete elaborees par l'ecole ameri-caine des 6tudes classiques a Ath&nes et par les ecolesam6ricaines de recherche orientale, qui commandi-tent des fouilles am6ricaines en Grece et au Proche-Orient. Le but est de fournir des renseignements auxrestaurateurspar rapport a l'attitude des archeologuesenvers notre discipline, surtout lorsque ceux-cidoivent collaborer dans le contexte d'une fouillearcheologique.TITULO-Los arque6logos acerca de la conser-vaci6n: como es tratada la conservaci6n en los c6di-gos de 6tica y los estandares profesionales de laarqueologia. RESUMEN-Los conservadores deobjetos trabajan en una variedad de contextos.Aunque se guian por su propio c6digo profesional, sutrabajo tambien esta influenciado por los c6digos ylas practicas de otros profesionales con los cualescomparten tareas. Este articulo examina la atenci6nque le dan a la conservaci6n los codigos profesionalesde las sociedades arqueol6gicas mis importantes delos Estados Unidos. Estasson: el Archaeological Insti-tute ofAmerica, la Society for American Archaeology, la Society for Historical Archaeology y el Registerof Professional Archaeologists, una organizaci6ndedicada al mantenimiento de los estindares profe-sionales en la arqueologia. Tambien se discute comose trata a la conservaci6n en la guia desarrolladaporla American School of Classical Studies en Atenas, ypor la American Schools of Oriental Research, insti-tuciones que apoyan excavaciones en Grecia y en elMedio Oriente. El prop6sito del articulo es brindarinformaci6n sobre la actitud hacia la conservaci6n delos arque6logos, profesionales con quienes los conser-vadores colaboran especialmente en el contexto de laexcavacion.1. INTRODUCTIONCodes of ethics and standards are now de rigueur or

JAIC 40 (2001):137-146


3/11

138SUSAN I. ROTROFF

professional societies, and over the past decadesconservators, archaeologists, anthropologists, andmuseum professionals have devoted considerableattention to the creation and refinement of suchdocuments.1 No society is an island, however, andoften the codes of one set of professionals haveimportant implications for members of another. Suchis the case with conservators and archaeologists.Conservators have their own ethical guidelines andstandards of practice (Sease 1998), but they workwithin a variety of frameworks, and the standards ofthose frameworks inevitably have an impact on howeffectively conservators can practice their profession.This article reviews the status of conservation withinthe codes of six archaeological organizations, withparticular focus on how these codes govern the prac-tice of conservators within the context of archaeo-logical excavation. The full texts of most of thesecodes are available on the Internet (see References).The codes of the Archaeological Institute of America(AIA), the Society for American Archaeology (SAA),and the Register of Professional Archaeologists(RPA) are also published inVitelli (1996, 253-66).A brief discussion of the processes that led to thedevelopment of the codes can help to put them incontext. The archaeological profession has changeddramatically over the past few decades (Patterson1995). Until fairly recently it was a pastime reservedfor the wealthy. Academic salaries were low, andoutside sources of funding were few. Until wellbeyond the middle of the 20th century, field directorswere most often well-to-do individuals withacademic appointments at one of a handful of presti-gious institutions.The high social status of these indi-viduals served as a guarantee of their expertise, andtheir power was such that no one was likely to ques-tion the conduct of their excavations, in terms ofeither procedures or personnel.While a good deal ofthis old system remains in place, there has also beensignificant change. University teaching now pays aliving wage, and funding sources have expanded, sothat those without personal fortunes can both teachand raise funds for archaeological projects. In theUnited States, increasing amounts of archaeologicalwork take place outside the academic setting throughcontract archaeology and through local, state, and

federal agencies (Zeder 1997). Technologicaladvances require that more staff members, with awider variety of skills,be involved in excavation, andthe participation of students, whether as volunteersor as members of field schools, has become routine.At the same time, the fast pace of developmentthreatens archaeological sites worldwide; and theantiquities market continues to take its toll on thearchaeological record (Vitelli 1996). The interests ofindigenous peoples in archaeological sites and mate-rials have raised thorny ethical issues, as have theclaims of nations whose archaeological heritage hasbeen exploited by foreign archaeologists and collec-tors in the past (Vitelli 1996). All these factors havecontributed to a heightened awareness of the need tocodify professional standards of behavior and practicein all areas of archaeological work. While somearchaeological organizations have had such standardsin place since their inception, most American organ-izations have put their codes in place or revised themwithin the last decade, in response to the pressuresjust enumerated.

Archaeologists can be found all over theacademic map, working or trained in departments ofanthropology, art history, classics,history, and biblicalor Near Eastern studies.They practice archaeology allover the globe, and, because their research focuses onwidely different times and places, it is not surprisingthat severalprofessional societies have arisen.When itcomes to ethical issues and professional standards,however, a fair degree of unanimity has emerged.While it is excavation and spectaculardiscoveries thatattract attention and funding and confer status inboth academia and society at large, it is the preserva-tion of the archaeological record that every organiza-tion highlights in its codes and standards.All agree inseeing archaeologists as "stewards" of that record,with all the duties to protect and conserve that theterm implies.While few codes give specific directionin the area of object conservation, this sharedconcern with stewardship implies a strong supportfor the work of the archaeological conservator.

JAIC 40 (2001):137-146


4/11

139ARCHAEOLOGISTS ON CONSERVATION:

HOW CODES OF ARCHAEOLOGICAL ETHICS AND PROFESSIONALSTANDARDS TREAT CONSERVATION

2. PROFESSIONAL ORGANIZA-TIONSThe Archaeological Institute of America (AIA) is theoldest professional organization of archaeologists inthe United States. Its stated purpose at the time of itsfounding in 1879 was to foster archaeologicalresearch worldwide. In practice, however, the greatestemphasis has always been on the archaeology of theOld World and particularly of the Mediterraneanregion. As is commonly the case with archaeologicalsocieties, its membership includes both professionalarchaeologists and lay people. In fact, nonprofession-als are in the majority, and much of the activity of theinstitute is aimed at fostering interest in archaeologyamong the general public. It is sometimes a trickybusiness balancing the interests of those twogroups-professional and amateur-which do notalways coincide neatly. The institute has thereforecreated two documents. One is a short Code of Ethics(AIA 1991), less than half a page long, adopted in1990 and envisioned as appropriate to both lay andprofessional members. It does not mention conserva-tion, although it does affirm the institute's dedicationto "the protection and preservation of the world'sarchaeological resources." Four years later, in 1994,the institute adopted a second and lengthier docu-ment, the Code of ProfessionalStandards(AIA 1995),aimed at "those members . . . who play an active,professional role in the recovery, care,study, or publi-cation of archaeological material."By including theword "care"in the first sentence of its preamble, thecode puts curation and conservation on a par withexcavation and publication as primary concerns ofthe professional archaeologist. The preamble furtherdescribes archaeologists as the "primary stewards ofthe archaeological record" and enjoins them to"work actively to preserve that record in all itsdimensions and for the long term," telegraphing acentral concern for conservation.

The code is divided into three sections, outliningresponsibilities to the archaeological record, to thepublic, and to colleagues. The fourth guideline underthe first rubric states:"Archaeologists should antici-pate and provide for adequate and accessible long-term storage and curatorial facilities for all

archaeological materials." This guideline alreadyexpresses a concern with conservation, sinceadequate long-term curation must of necessityinclude appropriate conservation. But the sixthguideline goes further, specifying that "all researchprojects should contain specific plans for conserva-tion . .. from the very outset, and funds should besecured for such purposes."This guideline is particu-larly significant, for lack of funds is one of the mainreasons for inadequate object conservation. Even themost ardent field archaeologist would probably nothesitate to support the principle that objects shouldreceive proper treatment; but when the choice isbetween another week of excavation and enhancedconservation, the objects are likely to lose out.Earmarking funds for conservation at the outset is animportant step.

The Society for American Archaeology is also anold institution, founded in 1934 to support the studyof the archaeology of the Americas. Of all Americanarchaeological organizations, the SAA has shown thegreatest awarenessof the need for professional guide-lines. In 1961 the organization issued "Four State-ments for Archaeology" (Champe et al. 1961), whichdealt with some of the same issues the current codesaddress.The SAA has continued to refine its profes-sional codes over the years, most recently, in 1996,publishing its Principles of ArchaeologicalEthics (SAA1996). It has also left a rich paper trail chronicling thecreation of that document (Lynott 1997). It is worthsummarizing this process, for it shows that the docu-ment is not a statement ex cathedrabut rather repre-sents a broad consensus within the field of Americanarchaeology.

Although the SAA had always taken a livelyinterest in maintaining its professional codes, it wasthe growing trade in illicit antiquities that mostrecently brought ethical issues to the forefront.Prompted by concern about that trade and theimpact of archaeological publication upon it, theeditors of American Antiquity and Latin AmericanAntiquity (both publications of the SAA) announcedin 1992 that those journals would not serve as thefirst place of publication of illicitly excavated objects(Latin AmericanAntiquity 1992, 261). At about thesame time (in 1991), realizing that illicit excavation

JAIC 40 (2001):137-146


5/11

140SUSAN I. ROTROFF

was only one of a host of ethical issues that theorganization needed to address, the SAA created atask force on ethics in archaeology. Instead ofattempting to draft a document in committee, theco-chairs opened up the procedure by organizing athree-day workshop with 18 participants from a widevariety of backgrounds. At this workshop, whichtook place in 1993, the participants outlined six"principles," as they termed them. Each of theseprinciples was then presented in a position paper atthe annual SAA meeting in the following year, andthese papers were published in 1995 (Lynott andWylie 1995). The task force spared no effort in elic-iting response; more papers were given at regionalconferences, there were discussion sessions at the1995 annual meeting, and comments were invitedthrough the SAA Bulletin,all of which led to modi-fication of the six original principles and the additionof two more. The revised Principleswere adopted bythe society's Executive Board in 1996 (for the fulltext, see SAA 1996).

From the beginning, the framers of the docu-ment sought to define "ethical ideals or goals" ratherthan to mandate specific behavior. Archaeologistsshould not feel that they are fulfilling their profes-sional obligations by complying with minimalrequirements, but rather they should aim for the bestpractice possible (Lynott and Wylie 1995 foreword;Wylie 1996, 186). Of interest in the present contextis that the paramount goal, enunciated as the firstprinciple and the principle from which all othersflow, is stewardship. "It is the responsibility of allarchaeologists,"the document reads,"to work for thelong-term conservation and protection of thearchaeological record." Given that these are state-ments of principle, not rules and regulations, nospecific guidelines for how that is to be done areincluded, but the principle of stewardship appearsrepeatedly throughout the document. Thus, underPrinciple 4 (Public Education and Outreach), archae-ologists are encouraged to "enlist public support forthe stewardship of the archaeological record."UnderPrinciple 7 (Records and Preservation), they areenjoined to "work actively for the preservation of,and long term access to, archaeological collections,records, and reports."And finally, under Principle 8

(Training and Resources), the need for "adequatetraining, experience, facilities, and other support" isemphasized. Thus, while the involvement of archae-ological conservators on-site is not specificallymentioned, the principles expressed require suchinvolvement.

The Society for Historical Archaeology wasfounded in 1967 as a scholarly organization devotedto the study of the archaeology of the modern world,from about 1400 to the present. The society incor-porates its ethical position in Article VII of its bylaws(SHA 1992), a short and fairly general statement butone that specifically mentions conservation: "TheSociety supports the conservation, preservation, andresearch of archaeological resources."The SHA hasalso prepared a lengthy document outlining standardsfor the curation of archaeological collections, andhere object conservation plays a large part (SHA1993). This document covers the cleaning, conserva-tion, labeling, documentation, and storage of artifactsin some detail and characterizes conservation andproper curation as a "professional obligation" and"ethical responsibility" of the field archaeologist.Treatment appropriate to the material and conditionof the object, supervision by professional conserva-tors, and full documentation are stressed as necessi-ties. Instructions for appropriate storage containersand guidelines for accessibility, security, and controlof humidity, temperature, and light in the curationfacility are also included, making this a useful practi-cal guide as well.

An earlier attempt of the Society for AmericanArchaeology to deal with professional standards hadresulted, in 1976, in the creation of the Society ofProfessional Archaeologists (SOPA), which hasrecently metamorphosed into the Register of Profes-sional Archaeologists (RPA) (McGimsey et al. 1995).The RPA is sponsored by the three organizationswhose codes were outlined above (AIA, SAA, andSHA), but, unlike them, it is not a scholarly society.Its sole purpose is "the promotion and maintenanceof professional standards in archaeology and theregistration of qualified archaeologists." Its websitedescribes the register as "a listing of archaeologistswho have agreed to abide by an explicit code ofconduct and standards of research performance." Its

JAIC 40 (2001):137-146


6/11



Code of Conductand Standardsof ResearchPerformance(RPA 1991), formulated when SOPA was firstconstituted in 1976, thus play a central role.

Those documents present a striking contrast tothe Principlespromulgated by the SAA, as they offer aspecific list of rules rather than a series of goals. Theyfollow the "Ten Commandments" model, with eachsection prefaced by the phrase "An archaeologistshall,"or "An archaeologist shall not." This formulamight lead one to expect more explicit direction onarchaeological conservation, but the documents aredisappointing on that score. The code outlinesresponsibilities in three areas: to the public; tocolleagues, employees, and students; and to employersand clients. Responsibilities to the archaeologicalrecord itself are not explicitly addressed.The word"conservation" occurs only once, in Section I (TheArchaeologist's Responsibility to the Public): "Anarcheologist shall ... actively support conservation ofthe archeological resource base." More guidance isoffered in the second document, the Standards ofResearch Performance, ut, even here, the standardsseem to pass the conservation buck. Archaeologistsare enjoined to "ensure the availability of... adequatecuratorial facilities for specimens and records," aninjunction that ought to include conservation butthat is maddeningly vague. The code furthermorerequires that "specimens . . . resulting from a projectmust be deposited at an institution with permanentcuratorial facilities, unless otherwise required by law."3. RESEARCH INSTITUTIONSThe professional organizations discussed above are,infact, somewhat removed from the day-to-day prac-tice of archaeology. They themselves usually do notsponsor excavations or surveys directly (althoughsome have done so in the past), and all are voluntaryassociations that an archaeologist may or may notchoose to join. Other organizations, however, arecloser to the actual fieldwork and are therefore in aposition to have a significant impact on the way thatfieldwork is conducted. These are the variousresearch institutions through which much archaeo-logical research is conducted outside of the UnitedStates.

One such institution is the American School ofClassical Studies at Athens (ASCSA). In Greece, allfieldwork by non-Greeks must be carried out underthe auspices of a national school-in the case ofAmericans, the American School. In the eyes of theGreek government, the school is responsible for theconduct of those projects, and if that conduct isdeemed inadequate, it is the school that will be heldaccountable. It is therefore necessary for the school toregulate and monitor American projects in Greece,an obligation it performs primarily through its Exca-vation and Survey Committee. While permits areissued by the Greek state, American archaeologistsmust apply first to the committee, a body of fourelected and three ex officio members, all individualswith extensive archaeological experience in Greeceand elsewhere. The committee has prepared a four-page document (ASCSA 1997) to guide researchersin the preparation of their applications. Conservationis mentioned explicitly only once, in a discussion ofthe detailed budget that must accompany the appli-cation; researchers are reminded of a stipulation inGreek Law 5351/32 that mandates that the project"pay for . . . the conservation of the uncoveredremains, the support of walls, the filling of pits, or thedrainage of water."The language of that legislationsuggests a concern with conservation of the site itselfrather than of objects excavated from it. Applicantsmust also,however, ensure the safe storage of artifactsand must submit a detailed research plan, including alist of all personnel and their qualifications, as well asa description of permanent storage facilities. Theabsence of provisions for proper archaeologicalconservation in such an application is unlikely to gounremarked, and the Excavation and SurveyCommittee does not hesitate to demand revisions toresearch plans before granting its approval. It isimportant to note that codes and standards can goonly so far. It is impossible to legislate for every even-tuality, and vigilant human oversight is an all-important safeguard.The American School has recently accepted areport from the Ad Hoc Committee on Site Stew-ardship (ASCSA 1999), which was created to dealwith a range of issues involving intellectual property,conservation, and publication. The report is not a

JAIC 40 (2001):137-146


7/11

142SUSAN I. ROTROFF

binding document but was written to guide theschool in the regulation of excavation and surveyprojects carried out under its aegis. Conservation ismentioned twice. "The School has the right ...," thereport reads, "to refuse to renew a permit whenproper procedures have not been followed or certainspecific requirements (for example, for storage orconservation) have not been met." Conservation alsofigures in a list of the responsibilities of project direc-tors, which "would normally include arrangementsfor excavation or survey, storage, archives ... site andobject conservation, and publication."A similar organization, which oversees Americanfieldwork in Israel,Jordan, Cyprus, and Syria, is theAmerican Schools of Oriental Research (ASOR),which adopted its Policy on Preservation nd Protectionof ArchaeologicalResources in 1995 (ASOR 1995).ASOR, too, makes stewardship central to its code.Archaeologists should be "both caretakers and advo-cates" for the archaeological record, that is, for sites,collections, records, and reports. In the brief SectionIV of the Policy, devoted to excavation standards,proper curation of records and collections is specifi-cally mandated. There ASOR also invokes "thereview process of its Committee on ArchaeologicalPolicy" as a watchdog to ensure "that excavations areconducted according to the highest possible profes-sional standards."The committee has in turn drafteda more detailed document (ASOR n.d.) governingstandards, procedures, and guidelines for projectscarried out under ASOR's aegis. In Section I of thisdocument, "conservation by qualified personnel" forall archaeological materials recovered is mandated.

4. THE STICK OR THE CARROTWhat happens, though, when archaeologists do notfollow the guidelines of the codes? What recoursewould there be, for instance, if one learned thatobjects found on a given excavation were not receiv-ing appropriate treatment? The SAA document, withits statement of maximal goals, leaves little room forenforcement. The RPA, on the other hand, explicitlydescribes its strictures as "minimum standards,"andintegral to the organization is a grievance proceduredesigned to deal with alleged violations of those stan-

dards.The AIA also has a grievance procedure (AIA1996), although there was considerable resistance tothis within the Professional ResponsibilitiesCommittee on the grounds that grievances "couldcause bad feelings" among the membership. It wasfinally agreed, though, that bad feelings were betterthan bad archaeology, and a procedure for reportingand resolving infractions of the codes was drafted.Even when such a procedure is in place, however,professional organizations do not carry a very bigstick.The most they can do is to revoke the member-ship of the offending party.That might or might notbe embarrassing,but it will not remedy the problem.The person in question can continue to carry out theproject, whether it is well conceived and executed ornot. Institutions with more direct oversight-like theAmerican School of ClassicalStudies-can, however,refuse to seek renewal for a permit if an archaeolo-gist's conduct is found to be below professional stan-dards.The fact is, though, that both individuals andinstitutions are reluctant to point fingers and takesteps to correct inadequacies. I know of only onecase where formal complaints have resulted in achange of project direction, although I have heard ofand observed many instances of poor archaeologicalpractice, in terms of object conservation as well as inother facets of field archaeology.

Innovative use of the carrot may, however, bemore effective than the stick, and in this area I canreport a new initiative of the Archaeological Instituteof America. In 1998 the AIA established its Archaeo-logical Conservation Award. The honor is given onthe basis of nominations solicited from the entiremembership of the institute (AIA 1998). It can go toan individual, an institution, or an organization andrecognizes excellence in any one of four areas:archaeological conservation, archaeological conser-vation science, archaeological heritage management,or the enhancement of public awareness of archaeo-logical conservation through teaching, lecturing,exhibition, or publication. The recipients of thisaward will provide visible models, a more effectiveteaching tool, perhaps, than either lists of regulationsor exhortatory principles. The AIA has further estab-lished a Conservation and Heritage ManagementCommittee charged with the promotion of commu-

JAIC 40 (2001):137-146


8/11



nication "between AIA and professional organiza-tions dedicated to conservation" and with thepromotion of "greater awareness of the central roleof conservation in archaeological fieldwork" (AIA1999, 18). In support of that second goal, thecommittee will organize colloquia on topics relatedto conservation for presentation at future annualmeetings of the AIA.5. PAST,PRESENT, AND A SUGGES-TION FOR THE FUTUREThe codified statements about conservation summa-rized above provide an overview of the attitude ofthe archaeological profession to conservation. It isdifficult to generalize, however, about the effect ofthose codes on archaeological practice. In place ofgeneralization, therefore, I offer an account ofchanges on one excavation with which I am familiar,and speculation about what brought those changesabout.

At the Agora Excavations, 30 years ago, there wasa "mending room," labeled with the Greek wordsynkoleterion(literally, "the place where things areglued together"), which pretty much sums up its role.It was run by Spyros Spyropoulos, a remarkable andhighly intelligent man who was blessed with ingenu-ity, curiosity, manual dexterity, and practical abilitybut who had no formal training beyond an appren-ticeship in carpentry. Nonetheless, he was widelyconsulted in Greece for his practical knowledge ofthe repairand preservation of artifacts.Major changesbegan in 1980, with the appointment of the first full-time, professional conservator. Now the excavationhas a well-equipped conservation laboratory,currently staffed by two conservators and a variablenumber of interns who play a vital role in both exca-vation and the management of the collection.

Many factors contributed to the earlier situationand to the subsequent change. The overwhelmingmajority of the objects found at the Agora are ofceramic or stone, materials that seemed, in the earlyyears of excavation (the 1930s), to require little treat-ment beyond mending and filling. Organic materialwas almost never encountered, and even metals wererelatively rare among the objects recovered; expert

advice on the stabilization and reconstruction of suchobjects could be sought elsewhere if the need arose.As the collection aged, however, it became clear thatthese objects were not as stable as the archaeologistshad imagined. It also emerged that some of the stor-age and treatment decisions that had been made inthe past were having deleterious effects upon theobjects. The fact that this was a long-running exca-vation and that the objects remained accessible andwere frequently consulted by scholars (so that theconservation problems were highly visible)contributed to awareness of the need for a profes-sional conservation program for the collection andtherefore for the excavation as well. In addition, thelate 1960s saw a change in leadership, with theappointment, for the first time, of a director who hadnot been a member of the team since the first yearsof excavation and who was eager to introduce signif-icant innovations. These changes, in short, did notcome about as a result of the codification of standardsdescribed above. Rather, both phenomena-improved conservation on individual excavations andthe concern for conservation that the codesexpress-grew out of profound changes in the atti-tude of archaeologists toward the objects of theirstudy: a sharper awareness of their fragile nature andof our responsibility, and ability, through collabora-tion with conservators, to take decisive action to passthese objects on to future generations intact.

These changes are also part of a more generaldevelopment within the academy and the world atlarge.The explosion of knowledge in every field hasspawned increased specialization, which in turncreates a need for enhanced cooperation and collab-oration on projects of even modest scale. Collabora-tion does not always come easily, however, andgreater strides could be made in this direction. Thedifficulties inherent in confronting a differentapproach to a problem, the use of unfamiliarconcepts and vocabulary, and loss of completecontrol can turn people away from the enterprise.While archaeologists and conservators are part of thesame excavation staffs,all too often they work side byside but not together. Smaller and truly collaborativeprojects leading to joint publications by archaeolo-gists and conservators, in journals devoted to both

JAIC 40 (2001):137-146


9/11

144SUSAN I. ROTROFF

professions, would highlight the complementarycontributions that both bring to archaeologicalresearch and draw attention to the fact that both arepartners in a coordinated effort to rescue the pastfrom obscurity and save it for the future.6. CONCLUSIONSThe concept of stewardship around which the docu-ments discussed above are built derives, ultimately,from the model of ecological conservation (Lipe1974).As is clear from reports of discussions that tookplace as the SAA was drafting its Principles,manyarchaeologists thought of stewardship primarily interms of sites, not objects. Controversy revolvedaround the question of whether archaeologists couldresponsibly excavate sites that are not threatened, orwhether, since excavation is destruction, they shouldconserve those sites for future archaeologists (LynottandWylie 1995, 28-32; Lynott 1997). No one seemsto have even mentioned issues of object conserva-tion, but, following the ecological model, "conserva-tion" must apply to the whole ecosystem, down to itssmallest component. Stewardship therefore impliesserious commitment to object conservation, even ifthis may not have been foremost in the minds ofthose framing the documents.Whether codes expressminimal standards or maximal goals, they are onlywritten documents. Human beings have to interpretand apply them, and the language of the archaeolog-ical codes, principles, and standards makes conserva-tion a primary responsibility of archaeologists.ACKNOWLEDGMENTSMy thanks to Jeffrey Maish for suggesting this topicto me and for reading a draft of this article. I amgrateful also to the many people who helped megather the information summarized here: StevenKoob, Claire Lyons, Mark Meister, Naomi Norman,and Bob Sonderman were especially helpful. Specialthanks are due Alison Wylie, who, closely involvedwith the development of the SAA Principles nd witharchaeological ethics, made suggestions that substan-tially improved the content of this article in thoseareas.

NOTE1. For an index of codes of many professional soci-eties, see the web page of the Illinois Institute ofTechnology, Center for the Study of Ethics in theProfessions, at http://csep.iit.edu/codes/index.html(accessed 8/14/00).REFERENCESAIA. 1991. Code of ethics.AmericanJournalofArchaeol-ogy 95:285, also at www.archaeological.org/About_the_AIA/Ethics.html (accessed 2/15/01).Boston: Archaeological Institute of America.AIA. 1995. Code of professionalstandards. AmericanJournal of Archaeology 99:300-301, also atwww.archaeological.org/About_the_AIA/CodePS.html (accessed 2/15/01). Boston: ArchaeologicalInstitute of America.AIA. 1996. Grievance procedure, at www.archaeological. org/About_the_AIA/CodePS.html(accessed 2/15/01). Boston: Archaeological Instituteof America.AIA. 1998. AIA awards:Nomination guidelines, atwww. archaeological.org/About_the_AIA/Awards.html (accessed 2/15/01). Boston: Archaeo-logical Institute of America.AIA. 1999. Archaeological Institute of America,1999-2000 Directory.Boston: Archaeological Insti-tute of America.ASCSA. 1997. Procedures for obtaining a permit forexcavation or survey work in Greece, revised April29, 1997, at www.ascsa.org (accessed 2/15/01).Princeton, N.J.:American School of Classical Studiesat Athens.ASCSA. 1999. Report of the Ad Hoc Committee onSite Stewardship, March 23, 1999, accepted by theManaging Committee of the School, May 8, 1999.American School of Classical Studies at Athens,Princeton, N.J.

JAIC 40 (2001):137-146


10/11



ASOR. 1995. Policy on preservationand protection ofarchaeologicalresources,at www.bu.edu/asor/policy.htm (accessed 2/15/01). Boston: American Schoolsof Oriental Research.ASOR. n.d. Statement of general standards for proj-ects affiliated with the American Schools of OrientalResearch, at www.bu.edu/asor/digstand.htm(accessed 2/15/01). Boston: American Schools ofOriental Research.

Champe, J. L. D. S. Byers, C. Evans, A. K. Guthe, H.W. Hamilton, E. B. Jelks, C. W Meighan, S. Olafson,G. I. Quimby,W. Smith, and E Wendorf. 1961. Fourstatements for archaeology. American Antiquity27:137-38.Latin AmericanAntiquity 1992. Editorial policy, infor-mation for authors, and style guide for AmericanAntiquity and LatinAmericanAntiquity.Latin AmericanAntiquity 3(3):259-80.Lipe,W. D. 1974.A conservation model for Americanarchaeology. Kiva 39(3):213-45.Lynott, M.J. 1997. Ethical principles and archaeolog-ical practice: Development of an ethics policy. Ameri-canAntiquity 62:589-99.

Lynott, M.J., and A.Wylie, eds. 1995. Ethics in Ameri-can archaeology:Challenges or the 1990s. Washington,D.C.: Society for American Archaeology.McGimsey, C. R. III, B. Lipe, and D. Seifert. 1995.SAA, SAH, SOPA, AIA discuss Register of Profes-sional Archaeologists. SAA Bulletin 13(3):10-15, alsoat www.anth.ucsb.edu/SAABulletin/13.3/SAA5.html (accessed 8/3/00).Patterson,T. C. 1995. Toward socialhistoryof archaeol-ogy in the United States. Fort Worth, Tex.: HarcourtBrace.RPA. 1991. Code of conductand Standardsof researchperformance, t www.rpanet.org (accessed 2/15/01).Baltimore: Register of Professional Archaeologists.

Sease, C. 1998. Codes of ethics for conservation.Jour-nal of CulturalProperty7(1):98-115.SAA. 1996. Ethics in archaeology: Society for Amer-ican Archaeology Principles of archaeologicalethics,AmericanAntiquity 61:451-52, also at www.saa.org/AboutSAA/Ethics/prethic.html (accessed 2/15/01).Washington, D.C.: Society for AmericanArchaeology.SHA. 1992. Bylaws. Society or HistoricalArchaeologyNewsletter 25(2):32-36, also at www.sha.org/sha_back.htm (accessed 2/15/01). Tucson: Societyfor Historical Archaeology.SHA. 1993. SHA standards and guidelines for thecuration of archaeological collections. Society forHistoricalArchaeologyNewsletter26(4).Vitelli, K. D., ed. 1996. Archaeological thics.WalnutCreek, Calif.:AltaMira Press.

Wylie, A. 1996. Ethical dilemmas in archaeologicalpractice: Looting, repatriation, stewardship, and the(trans)formation of disciplinary identity. Perspectiveson Science4(2):154-94.Zeder, M.A. 1997. TheAmericanarchaeologist:A rofile.Walnut Creek, Calif.:AltaMira Press.

SUSAN I. ROTROFF is professor of classicalarchaeology at Washington University in St. Louisand a specialist on Greek ceramics of the Hellenisticperiod (3d-1st century B.C.). She is a longtimemember of the research staff of the Agora Excava-tions, in Athens, Greece, and has excavated in Turkeyand Tunisia as well. She has been a member of theGoverning Board of the Archaeological Institute ofAmerica and served an eight-year term (1992-2000)on its Professional Responsibilities Committee, thebody that drafted the institute's Code of Ethics andCode of ProfessionalStandards.She has also served asvice-chair of the Managing Committee of the Amer-ican School of Classical Studies atAthens. As chair ofthe school's Ad Hoc Committee on Site Stewardship,

JAIC 40 (2001):137-146


11/11

146SUSAN I. ROTROFF

she drafted guidelines for the school's regulation ofexcavations that take place under its aegis. She hasalso served on the school's Excavation and SurveyCommittee. Address:Washington University, CampusBox 1050, One Brookings Dr., St. Louis, Mo. 63130-4899Received for review October 19, 2000. Revisedmanuscript received February 26, 2001. Accepted forpublication May 23, 2001.

JAIC 40 (2001):137-146

archaeology and conservation

Documents