Aristotle once asked Plato: “Is it right to take for one’s own benefit knowledge that belongs to all?” to which the old man is thought to have replied “Well, it’s legal innit in an uncivilised Northern realm?”
There’s to be a conference on “heritage ethics”. Good. But one discussion topic is “the rights of “disfranchised groups” to access heritage”. Disfranchised is a much used term and it’s no secret it’s a coy way of referring to artefact hunters. But are they truly “disfranchised”, i.e. locked out of conventional archaeology? Personally I don’t see it. In Britain literacy is high, books and websites are numerous, training, museums, community projects and local societies are open to all. So where’s the barrier? Isn’t it that detectorists make a free choice to interact with archaeology in their particular way?
Moshenska and Dhanjal (Community Archaeology: Themes, Methods and Practices) describe two perceptions of archaeology. “Closed” which “should only be carried out by trained professionals” (or at least, in ways they approve) and “Open”, based on the idea that the public have an absolute right to experience it on their own terms with or without professional guidance. The latter version, the idea that the archaeological record is “a common treasury for the population to enjoy, exploit and interact with” is self-evidently what every artefact hunter acts upon – by deliberate choice, not disfranchisement.
So who started the disfranchisement rumour? Probably Culture Minister Lammy (in PAS’s 2005/6 Annual Report) saying PAS had “helped to break down social barriers and to reach out to people who have often felt excluded from formal education and the historic environment” and “almost 47 per cent of people recording finds with the Scheme are from groups C2, D & E.” The intended implication (else why mention it?) is that detecting is for those too uneducated to do Archaeology properly. Patronising, yes. But worse, very damaging because PAS (despite knowing full well detecting is inferior to Archaeology in terms of knowledge-loss) has adopted a core message of “please detect more responsibly” when it should have been saying “please join your local archaeology group and do Archaeology more responsibly”. It would be great if THAT was discussed at the University of Kent.
__________________________________________
More Heritage Journal views on artefact collecting
__________________________________________
The Heritage Journal 
6 comments
Comments feed for this article
19/04/2014 at 16:41
Carol
I read it differently. Disenfranchisement is loss of the right to vote, ie, to have input into something, therefore the topic of the conference is referring to socio economic groups who may be the customers of the academic profession but have no input mechanism into how they are treated as customers by the academic group. Put into a practical perspective, community archaeology – Who has a say in what the community actually wants of archaeology? That is the reason for the mention of community leaders as part of the discussion.
This conference also aims to enable academics, heritage, museum and law enforcement professionals, students and community leaders to engage in an innovative and productive conversation with one another.
This ties in well with the CBA’s recent new strapline of ‘Archaeology for all’ as part of a drive to promote archaeology as something beyond the realms of academia and into a notional concept that heritage is common to all of the population and therefore there should be wider discourse with more a more open and all embracing consideration of the public as stakeholders..
19/04/2014 at 17:48
Nigel S
I believe there is a limit to how much the Conference should promote “wider discourse with more a more open and all embracing consideration of the public as stakeholders.”
Yes, “heritage is common to all of the population” but no, that does not give everyone the right to exploit or destroy it for personal profit or amusement. In fact, the CBA’s strapline expresses that view. In the words of Mike Heyworth:
“By using ‘archaeology for all’ we are making a deliberate statement that everyone can have a role in studying and caring for the material remains of the past. This definition does not include treasure/artefact hunters who have no interest in the archaeological context of their finds and usually focus on personal financial gain resulting in a loss of archaeological knowledge.”
I should imagine that if CBA was into birdwatching they’d have the strapline Ornithology for All but they certainly wouldn’t like to be seen as embracing egg collecting.
It’s to be hoped that an academic conference on Ornithology would be at pains to stress the distinction!
19/04/2014 at 19:20
Carol
The conference is not about artefact hunters. It is about the public engagement with heritage, hence “the rights of “disfranchised groups” to access heritage”. In other words, how the public can have a greater say and engagement in the democratisation of the common Heritage.
The Conference brief starts “Heritage and ethics are too often considered through the lens of a single, specific theme.”. The conference hopes to broaden this horizon beyond that specific theme lens and to see wider and more holistic approach to the problems that face Heritage and explore a more cohesive approach than the current singular problem based approach.
Disenfranchised groups if far far more, if not totally beyond artefact hunters and hunting. Have you noticed that the ethnic diversity of the Heritage sector is extremely limited, or to put it another way, disenfranchised?
19/04/2014 at 19:49
Nigel S
Yes, I appreciate there are other groups such as ethnic minorities who may not be engaged with archaeology – although I would suggest “disengaged” may be a more accurate term than disfranchised to describe them.
However, to see them as in the same category as artefact hunters would be to neglect an important distinction I think. A disengaged member of an ethnic minority is only one step away from engagement for he can easily understand that the fundamental principles of Archaeology are sound. Not so a detectorist who ex officio can’t.
19/04/2014 at 20:41
Carol
“However, to see them as in the same category as artefact hunters would be to neglect an important distinction I think”
It is you who sees them (artefact hunters) as the same category as the disengaged/franchised as your comment shows, especially with the “I think” comment. I don’t, nor does the conference or its speakers. There is a clear distinction between the two. The aim is to explore better engagement and democratised input from groups that do not include artefact hunters. You yourself may well fall into the disenfranchised category. Wouldn’t you like to have more say and input into the Heritage discussion by way of better formal empowerment within those decision making processes?
19/04/2014 at 21:23
Nigel S
“The aim is to explore better engagement and democratised input from groups that do not include artefact hunters.”
Excellent.
“You yourself may well fall into the disenfranchised category.”
Oooh blimey no, I’m totally engaged thanks.
“Wouldn’t you like to have more say and input into the Heritage discussion by way of better formal empowerment within those decision making processes?”
Well I have plenty of say and input 😉 but no empowerment as those within the decision making process think I’m a no-account meddling know-nowt – or “amateur” for short! 😉