Quelques propositions nouvelles pour l’éthique en archéologie

Résumé Abstract Dans cette conclusion du numéro spécial « Archéo-Ethique », nous revenons sur les constats et analyses communes à plusieurs contributions, ainsi que sur les solutions les plus couramment proposées par les auteurs. In this conclusion of the special issue “Archaeo-Ethics”, we summarise the findings and analyses of several texts in this issue, as well as the most common solutions suggested by the authors.


Conclusion: Some New Proposals for Ethics in Archaeology
Despite the great diversity of the topics covered, a common strand runs through the articles in this issue, notably the persistence of the major problems that led to the rise of ethics in archaeology in the 1970s: post-colonialism, the excavation of human remains, and the looting of sites.Moreover, new problems emerge and old ones require redefinition according to the evolutions of contemporary society: professionalization of the discipline, economic liberalisation, or even the change in attitude in contemporary European society towards human remains.Faced with these observations, the authors provided not only their theoretical reflections but also proposals for concrete solutions.In this concluding text, we return to some of these contributions.

Shared analysis
The question "Who owns the past?", taken up by Christian Gates St-Pierre in the title of his contribution, is central to ethics in archaeology.This often discussed question refers us back to the long-time colonial practice of the discipline and to our difficulties, even today, in extracting ourselves from this problem.We can distinguish six main categories of archaeologists, all of whom are confronted, to varying degrees, with this problem: The archaeologist....  Situations of types 4, 5, and 6 (and sometimes type 2) are traditionally considered the most problematic in terms of ethics: in these cases, the archaeologist works on the culture of others and produces a discourse on their past.Sometimes, scientific discourse conflicts with the traditional accounts of local populations, as Christian Gates St-Pierre shows with regard to the Saint Lawrence Iroquoians.The archaeologist may then appear to be a coloniser of Aboriginal thought.In the past, this was the usual way to proceed.The archaeologist was the only representative of rationality and the bearer of truth, since he was trained in the Western archaeo-historical mode of knowledge.The laws of some countries, such as Canada, now impose strict obligations on scientists in relation to the descendants of the cultures they study, with the aim of establishing mutual respect and empowering populations.The goal is to ensure the smooth coexistence of traditional narratives and scientific discourse, without placing them on a scale of value.As Alfredo González-Ruibal points out, archaeologists and indigenous peoples do not live in the same realities and should not pretend to do so.The reflections of several authors on this issue (Bousquet, Gates St-Pierre, González-Ruibal, Molinié) push us to move towards an ethics of difference that is undoubtedly the most respectful solution for all parties concerned.However, the imperatives of dialogue and collaboration must not lead us into a naïve approach that is harmful to research.Collaboration with local populations should not be seenas is sometimes implied by a predominantly North American politically correct discourseas a dichotomy between oppressed minorities and predatory white Western science.Alfredo González-Ruibal confronts us, in his article, with the incoherence of our imaginary representations of indigenous communities, seen as homogeneous and living in a harmonious relationship with nature.This idealised vision is sometimes far removed from reality.In some indigenous communities, individuals or groups may be actively involved in the economic exploitation of their heritage or their peers.Some are willing to collaborate with organisations engaged in illegal activities or to sacrifice their ancestral lands in exchange for financial benefits.The advance of globalised capitalism, population growth, and climate change will likely, as a matter of course, contribute in the coming years to the worsening of this state of affairs (González-Ruibal).In this context, the question of the value of archaeological heritage in a market economy is becoming increasingly acute.Heritage is now an integral part of some development projects organised by international institutions.The results of archaeological research can have profound consequences on the future of certain populations, as Ramiro Javier March has clearly shown with the example of the Ocloyas in Argentina.The archaeologist's responsibility is therefore considerable, since part of the value of the sites results from their scientific construction (March).

Works in their country
Finally, it is important to stress that the post-colonial question also concerns archaeologists working in Europe.In France, some researches still negotiate with the sites as if they were on conquered ground, following a mentality that may be a little too Jacobin4.Another problem, which has developed more recently, is the evolution of attitudes concerning research on human remains (Clavandier).According to Stefan Schreiber, Sabine Neumann and Vera Egbers, the objectivization of the deceased under study may pose an ethical problem because it is similar to othering of a colonial nature.The deceased are no longer subjects, as are the recent dead, but are reduced to the status of resources for research.The philosophical position of these researchers, as well as that of Philippe Charlier in forensic medicine (this issue), is in line with the current trend of extending the ethical perspective to all human remains, even partial or ancient (Clavandier).In France, for example, reburial is now commonly accompanied by ceremonies, religious or secular, which was not often the case in the past.A transformation has also taken place in recent years in museums, concerning conservation methods and scenographic devices for the exhibition of human remains (see for example the ICOM Code of Ethics [2]).This is a fundamental shift that concerns legal texts, professional and ethical codes of conduct, and social standards (Clavandier).While society seems increasingly sensitive to this subject, archaeologists have been confronted with at times hostile reactions from the public, such as during the excavation of the sarcophagus of Louise de Quengo in 2015 [3,4].
Another persistent problem for archaeologists is the appropriation of research for ideological and economic purposes.It concerns many temporal-geographical areas from Europe to South America, via the Middle East.The authors of this issue provide us with examples in France, with the pseudo-controversy over the location of the Alesia site (Vidal & Petit); in Peru, with the political construction of the myth of the Incas (Molinié); and in Iraq and Syria, with the exploitation of major archaeological sites by Saddam Hussein or Bachar al Hassad (Michel).Archaeology thus serves as a platform, on a national or local scale, for identity-building programs that seek to match sites to an often fantasised founding imaginary.Archaeology is then used to value one group over another or to support the policy of a regime.
Besides the relationship between archaeology and society, issues have emerged in recent decades within the archaeological discipline itself.The professionalization of archaeology and the competition between companies and institutions have created new research conditions which, coupled with increasingly oppressive management techniques, are disrupting the practice of archaeologists (Blein, Vandevelde-Rougale & Zorzin, Tuffery).The latter have long been academics, local scholars or enlightened amateurs.But the process of professionalization has led to the creation of many different categories: academics, researchers in public institutes, archaeologists working for local authorities, in the private or public rescue sector, or amateurs.The emergence of these different categories of archaeologists created, in France in particular, a feeling of lack of consideration on the part of those doing jobs supposedly less prestigious on the scale of the profession, such as the rescue sector, local authorities, or amateurs (Clavier, Vandevelde-Rougale & Zorzin, Gransard-4 One example is the "Meria Stone" case in the summer of 2012 in Corsica, when the Department of Submarine and Underwater Archaeological Research (DRASSM) arrived in the small village of Meria (Upper Corsica) by sea one morning and collected a Claudian inscription, located at a shallow depth near the beach.The emotion was strong among the villagers, who knew the stone well and had not been informed of its removal.The daily newspaper Corse Matin devoted its front page on 21 June 2012 to the event, which condemned the methods of the archaeologists (observation made by Béline Pasquini in June 2012) [1].Desmond).A feeling of unease nevertheless affects all categories of professionals whose research ethics are hampered by a lack of resources and contradictory instructions from new management methods.This new situation can result in a loss of sense of profession and a suffering at work.On the one hand, there is a real fear of being reduced to a simple building technician among some archaeologists of rescue archaeology, who have undergone a long period of study and who experience this as a downgrading.There is also an increase in socio-professional risks (Tuffery) and, by extension, in the scientific quality of excavations5.On the other hand, the pressure to publish [5], budget cuts and the permanent reduction in the number of research positions over the past few years [6] also creates a feeling of precariousness and powerlessness among some academics and researchers at the CNRS in the face of management imperatives that are becoming more of a priority than research.

Cross-functional solutions
Faced with these extremely diverse ethical challenges, the authors of this issue have tried to provide their analysis and some concrete solutions.Several proposals came up repeatedly, some of which may provide unique responses to multiple problems.
First, many authors reminded us that ethical archaeology is done for and with people.In concrete terms, this perspective requires us to review the way we view our work.Annick Clavier points out that, at present in France, the proper integration of archaeologists with local populations (via a highly motivated local community or associations of enthusiasts, for example) were not considered an advantage in digging permit applications.On the contrary, these facts may disadvantage the application, as the archaeologist is suspected of selecting their field of research for its easy accessibility more than on a scientific basis.Far be it for us to question the initial postulate of the Regional Archaeological Services: the motivation for survey or excavation must always be based on sound scientific questions.On the other hand, it seems to us that the proper integration of archaeologists among local populations should be highly valued, and even encouraged.It not only benefits local populations, but also contributes to the success of the scientific endeavour.The Canadian model, described in this issue by Christian Gates St-Pierre and Marie-Pierre Bousquet, could provide an inspiring basis for reflection.The need to create a link between archaeologists and local populations is also defended by Charlotte Blein, Agnès Vandevelde-Rougale and Nicolas Zorzin, who propose involving both citizens and archaeologists more closely in decision-making: which site to preserve, how to (re)design the real estate project according to the remains discovered, how to use the lessons learned from archaeological research, and therefore what the place should be for archaeologists in urban planning projects, etc.
The authors also stress the need for increased mediation and public education.This recommendation applies to both archaeologists working in their own country and those working abroad (types 1 to 6 defined above).It is essential to inform the public about the remains of their past, and a large part of this responsibility falls to the archaeologist (March, Michel).Education and communication are essential to prevent citizens from being captivated by opinion manipulators.It is the duty of archaeologists to be trained in the basics of communication in order to deal effectively with the media, and in order to maximise their impact on the audience (Vidal & Petit).Ramiro Javier March also proposes to integrate more archaeology into primary and secondary school curricula and to integrate, in university archaeology courses, more study of the relationship between archaeology and society, i.e., classes on ethics, which are still too few in French universities or European universities.These initiatives would build bridges between scientists, heritage, and the public at large.They would allow the establishment of a sustainable archaeology, based on a harmonious relationship between the various stakeholders in the heritage.The plea for sustainable archaeology (Blein, March, Vandevelde-Rougale & Zorzin), and even for an archaeology of "de-growth" (Clavier, Vandevelde-Rougale & Zorzin) is reasserted in several contributions.A slowdown in the frenzy of development would not only allow archaeologists to take the time to better integrate themselves with local populations in the regions they study, but also to solve many of the problems posed by the logic of neo-liberal management, which causes a sharp deterioration in their working conditions, especially in rescue archaeology.This paradigm would also be more in line with the scientific research process which, by its nature, requires time.
Finally, there have been many proposals for drafting an archaeological code of ethics.Although this type of code exists in many countries, particularly in the Anglo-Saxon world, we have only come across one text in France, the "Charte d'ethique des achéologues professionnels" by the SNPA, which is quite limited in scope.However, French archaeologists are not the only ones in Europe who are lacking codes of ethics [7].A code of ethics would allow archaeologists to agree on fundamental ethical principles in their relations with society but also in their scientific practice [8].It would provide them with a reference on which to base themselves when their employers impose work methods that endanger the proper conduct of excavations from a scientific point of view (Vandevelde-Rougale & Zorzin).Jean-Olivier Gransard-Desmond proposes that this code of ethics be accompanied by an Archaeologist's Oath, modelled on physicians' Hippocratic Oath.This oath would make it possible to establish common ethical foundations and to better discern, among archaeology practitioners, those who can claim to be legitimate archaeologists and those who cannot (it should be recalled that archaeology remains an unregulated profession in France)6.A code of ethics, by invoking the principal missions of the archaeologist, could also help us to better engage with and train the public.It would help to clarify the relationship between metal detector users and archaeologists (Delestre, Lecroere) and, at the same time, to facilitate collaboration with agents involved in archaeological research, such as speleologists (Gauchon).Similarly, it could provide a framework for collaboration with amateur archaeologists, who could enhance their skills in a standardised way (according to Gransard-Desmond's proposal, in order to be distinguished from "history-loving detectorists" and looters).Citizens, amateurs and professionals would then know in which setting they interact, thus clarifying the possible duties and expectations of each.But some authors caution against freezing debates by setting ethical standards.In order for reflection on our approaches and methods to be adapted to the different contexts and changes in society, it must be ongowing (Schreiber et al., Bousquet).An interesting compromise could be a code of ethics or professional conduct to be reviewed periodically, for example every five years.Another solution would be to publish, rather than a code, guidelines and general recommendations, in the spirit of the International Association for Assyriology's "Recommendations for the Ethical Practice in Our Disciplines", which provides a guide for researchers while respecting their autonomy and freedom of expression (Michel) [9].
A complementary solution could be to offer archaeologists the possibility of seeking advice from an archaeology ethics committee when setting up research projects, as exists in Canada when the researcher works with humans (Bousquet).A favourable ethical opinion might be required before any publication of research results, as is the case in the medical field [10].The request for an ethical opinion could also be left to the researcher's discretion, but the presence of this opinion on file should then be highly valued.This would allow archaeologists to highlight the civic or social aspect of their project.They could thus enrich their research by thinking of it in a more global way, by questioning the methods of its implementation and its general impact (development of territories, student training, mediation, media coverage, risks of appropriation, etc.) and by not only focusing on its scientific contributions; however, this approach requires the creation of ethics committees in archaeology, particularly for themes specific to this discipline.It should be noted that, with regard to the question of human remains, there are already pertinent groups in France, such as the INSERM ethics committee, but these would nevertheless benefit from including an archaeologist in their ranks [10].

Conclusion
As this synthesis clearly shows, there is no magic formula for solving the ethical problems raised by archaeology; however, the authors of this issue propose a set of concrete solutions that invite us to reform our discipline in line with the changes in society.Raising the question of ethics is already a first step.When we launched the Archaeo-Ethics Conference project, we received much enthusiastic feedback.But some archaeologists were sceptical about the usefulness of ethical reflection, and even hostile to the uncovering of problems that, in their opinion, archaeologists would be well advised to keep buried.This vision of ethics as a source of problems rather than solutions must end.We hope that the Archaeo-Ethics conference will have contributed to showing that all archaeologists, regardless of their era or study area, are concerned by the subject, to convincing the agnostic of the usefulness and even the urgency of ethical reflection in archaeology, and that it will have allowed a deepening of the thinking that has already been done.We look forward to extending these reflections in the coming years, through meetings (local or international, specialized or interdisciplinary), publications and, above all, concrete actions.The editors follow the recommendations and procedures outlined in the COPE Code of Conduct and Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors.Specifically, the editors will work to ensure the highest ethical standards of publication, including: the identification and management of conflicts of interest (for editors and for authors), the fair evaluation of manuscripts, and the publication of manuscripts that meet the journal's standards of excellence.

Type 1 .Type 2 .Type 3 .
Works abroad Study of remains without affiliation (real or imagined) with a contemporary culture Example: A French archaeologist working on the Magdalenian period in France.Example: A Belgian archaeologist working on the Magdalenian period in France.Study of the remains with affiliation (real or imagined) with a dominant contemporary culture Example: A Chinese archaeologist working on the Erlitou culture in China.

Type 4 .
Example: A Canadian archaeologist working on the Erlitou culture in China.Study of the remains with affiliation (real or imagined) with a contemporary minority culture Type 5. Example: A non-Cherokee American archaeologist working on Cherokee culture in the United States.Type 6. Example: An English archaeologist working on Cherokee culture in the United States.