The ragged trousered corporatists^[1]

by Umberto Albarella

Bibliography
Footnotes

At a session of the 2000 European Association of Archaeologists (EAA) conference in Lisbon the participants were asked to note on a piece of paper the reasons why they had decided to become archaeologists. The results of this exercise were then read out and some discussion followed. The response was unsurprisingly diverse but one common element seemed to emerge. The greatest attraction that had lured most people towards archaeology had nothing to do with a fascination for the past or a desire to uncover ancient treasures, but rather consisted in a perception of the archaeological profession as one representing freedom and unconventionality. In other words people had not really been fascinated by the profession but rather by a lifestyle, which promised to provide endless intellectual stimulation. My experience of the archaeological world for more than two decades has persuaded me that the archaeological community is in fact extremely regimented and that anybody who has been attracted to the field through the fraudulent perception of a world of free thinking should be entitled to compensation. I am not entirely sure about who should compensate them, but I firmly believe that this should involve a substantial amount of money.

My confession that I am one of those who were hooked by the subject on the basis of these illusory premises will come as no surprise. Perhaps, like many others, I was a victim of the idealism of my generation. It may sound funny, or even ridiculous, to say this today but somehow we used to believe in things. What things? Well, that varied: some believed in individual freedom, others in participation and responsibility, social justice, fairness, equality, peace, and perhaps there were other people who believed in the opposite of those things. In a way it does not matter – we believed , and many of us passionately so. How did these youthful dreams of intellectual freedom fare, when confronted with the supposedly free thinking professional community of archaeologists? Sadly, not very well at all. I soon realised that most archaeologists do not feel comfortable in speaking their minds. This may be for a variety of reasons, ranging from the fact that they are afraid that this may hamper their career opportunities, to the concern of upsetting their fund providers or simply because they are anxious to be seen as belonging to a predominant trend and do not want to be singled out for their way of thinking. It is not just paranoia (though there is an element of that too) as it is unquestionable that many organisations actively harass those employees who are not always prepared to tow the party line. I have fond memories of a funny episode that occurred when I worked for the English national body in charge of heritage conservation. On an internal email discussion list two colleagues expressed – strongly but politely – reservations about one of the many absurd initiatives taken by that particular organisation. It then emerged that they had been formally ‘reprimanded' for expressing their views. As a consequence I decided to reinforce their points and started speaking out publicly against this policy, but to no avail, as to my disappointment the reprimand never arrived.

Freedom of expression represents, however, only a small part of the equation. I was even more disappointed to find out that within the archaeological community there is an insane fondness for hierarchy and establishment. I have always had this old fashioned belief that research thrives in a team of partners where each opinion counts for what it is and not for where it comes from. However, I have had to face a professional environment where you do not work ‘with' but rather ‘for' somebody. I have been particularly disturbed by the way in which diggers based in archaeological units are often treated. They are commonly regarded as mere workers with no voice, opinion or insight in the intricacies of archaeological interpretation. I then said to myself that this is perhaps where I would have found the seeds of rebellion against the established powers, namely among the mass of diggers whose voice had been constantly repressed. But this ended up as my greatest disappointment. The worse archaeologists were paid and treated the greater seemed to be their fondness for their corporate employers. They really reminded me of the “ragged trousered philantropists” of Robert Tressell's memory (Tressell 1955) – an early 20 th century team of decorators who were constantly on the verge of destitution but never stopped championing their wealthy, powerful and corrupt oppressors.

In the era of economic globalisation archaeologists have also enthusiastically embraced the market oriented image that is demanded by the corporations which run our societies and their puppet national governments. Academics in particular seem to be at the forefront of this assimilation campaign. Have you ever seen a bunch of totally unbusiness-like individuals trying to run their work place as a business? The results are farcical. It is a good way to get the worst of two different worlds. Try to check a thesaurus and you will see that ‘business-like' is a synonym of ‘professional', ‘efficient', ‘thorough', ‘organised' ‘competent', whereas for ‘business' you will get ‘commerce', ‘selling', ‘industry', ‘dealing'. Words sometimes tell stories that go far beyond their initial appearance. Somehow archaeologists seem to believe that the first step towards professionalism is to sell your soul. In reality there is no real reason why we should not run our jobs professionally and at the same time maintain our ideals of cultural exchange, free education and creativity. People will then say that there are ‘international market forces' that we have to take into account, but such blind beliefs in world phenomena which we seemingly cannot control often simply represent a front to hide cowardice. Why can't we try to make our jobs financially sustainable without having to call our students ‘customers'? Is it substance or appearance that we are aiming for?

Talking of appearance it is interesting that in recent years archaeologists may well have failed to express a single honest opinion but have at the same time worked hard in making good use of their public image. On television in particular archaeologists are often represented as witty, happy, drinking, sometime eccentric individuals, involved in fascinating initiatives always full of mystery and endeavour, endlessly enthusiastic about their projects and adventures and free of constrains and intellectual limitations. Somehow they remind me of the smiling faces of the factory workers of Eastern Germany memory.

Some might argue that the fierce debates that characterise some archaeological conferences and the openness of the controversy between different theoretical trends prove that archaeology has lost none of its verve. It has also been claimed (e.g. Johnson 1999) that some of the most recent ideas in archaeology have emphasised the link between the study of the past and that fearful subject regarded almost as taboo by most archaeologists – politics. There is some truth in this but at the same time the reality is unfortunately not as promising as it might superficially appear. The supposed new thinkers in archaeology have lost no time to move from alternative intellectuals to positions of establishment, even sometime unashamedly embracing the world of large economic corporations (cf. Hamilakis 1999). In any case the fight between different theoretical schools of thought has always looked more like a power than an intellectual struggle. In fact it reminds me closely of a mafia war, with all youngsters ready to promise loyalty to whichever family will prevail. At conferences of the Theoretical Archaeology Group (TAG) I have often had the impression that there were only three or four individuals – endlessly replicated in their clones. Concerning the new political awareness of much modern day archaeology I have my doubts too. The last few years have seen the appearance of several works that deal with thorny issues such as the relation between archaeology and war, nationalism or dictatorship (e.g. Kohl & Fawcett 1995; Meskell 1998; Kane 2003; Galaty & Watkinson 2004). However stimulating these books are, they only touch marginally on key issues concerning the nature of our profession and its responsibilities towards itself and the external world. An interesting exception is represented by Pluciennik's (2001) edited book on the responsibilities of archaeologists, which represents one of the very few cases in which the uneasiness existing within the archaeological community is tackled head on.

Many will think that that I have described the situation in an unnecessarily gloomy way, that I should not take such a pessimistic view of our profession and that archaeology, despite all its problems, is still a lot of fun. Though I would wholeheartedly agree with the last point of my hypothetical critic, I would also like to take issue with the commonly held view that a critical perspective is a negative one. It is in fact the other way round; the status quo of established views is only challenged when there is belief in the resourcefulness of the individuals – in our case the archaeologists. As the French philosopher Jean Guehenno has said “The worst betrayal of intelligence is finding justification for the world as it is” (in Curtis 2003). I will not easily give up the fight to preserve the conquests of my generation. These were obtained by paying a significant price and to surrender would not simply mean that we have lost , but also that we have failed .

Is there hope for the future? Can archaeology find its soul again? Recent events allow us to be more optimistic. The huge controversy caused by the Iraq war woke up a small but significant section on the archaeological community. Among the two millions who, colourfully, energetically and civilly, marched in London to protest against the invasion there was also a minuscule but significant archaeological representation, identifiable with a banner of ‘archaeologists against the war'. Perhaps it is just wishful thinking but I gained a glimpse of that community I had dreamed of as a youngster. It was not the political point in itself that mattered most, but the manner in which it was presented and the readiness of some individuals to interrogate themselves on fairness and responsibility^[2]. There is today in the world a vibrant and new generation of idealists who I like to identify with the Global Justice Movement, which is prepared to confront the tyranny of economic power and business corporation. I have started seeing signs of new ferment and restlessness in the archaeological community too. There exists, I think, a ‘hope generation' that has the potential to be at the fore front of real change in the next few years - the establishment should beware!^[3]

Bibliography

Curtis, M. 2003. Web of deceit. Britain 's real role in the world . London : Vintage.

Galaty M.L. & Watkinson C. (eds). 2004. Archaeology under dictatorship. New York : Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers.

Hamilakis, Y. 1999. La trahison des archéologues? Archaeological practice as intellectual activity in postmodernity. Journal of Mediterranean Archaeology 12.1, 60-79.

Johnson, M. 1999. Archaeological theory: an introduction . Oxford : Blackwell.

Kane, S. (ed). 2003. The politics of archaeology and identity in a global context . Boston , Massachusetts : Archaeological Institute of America .

Kohl P.L. & Fawcett C. (eds). 1995. Nationalism, politics, and the practice of archaeology . Cambridge : Cambridge University Press.

Meskell, L. (ed). 1998. Archaeology under fire. Nationalism, politics and heritage in the Eastern Mediterranean and the Middle East . London and New York : Routledge.

Pluciennik, M. (ed). 2001. The responsibilities of archaeologists. Archaeology and ethics . Oxford : BAR Int. Series 981.

Tressell, R. 1955. The Ragged trousered philantropists . St. Albans ': Granada (ed.1965).

Footnotes

I would like to thank Becky Roseff for introducing me to the work of Robert Tressell, and the editors of Assemblage for inviting me to write this ‘opinion' and for unwittingly providing me with the idea of a ‘hope generation'.

The effect of the Iraq war and the role of archaeologists was discussed at a session I organised for TAG 2005 in Sheffield , entitled “An eternal conflict? Archaeology and social responsibility in the post-Iraq world”.

It was almost inevitable for me to end this short piece on a positive note, but I still hope to have managed to annoy as many people as possible and that – provided that there are any drops of blood left in the anaemic world of archaeology - somebody will take care of challenging my views and put me in my place.

 About the author

Dr Umberto Albarella
Department of Archaeology, University of Sheffield
u.albarella@sheffield.ac.uk

Umberto Albarella is an economic migrant from Italy , where he obtained his degree in Natural Sciences at the University of Naples . Once in Britain he has been scraping his living by working first for English Heritage and then for various British universities. In 2004, at a mid point between his retirement and his student days, he was awarded his PhD at the University of Durham (UK). His research interests range from the size of the pig lower second molar to the ethics of archaeology. His publications are too boring to be listed here but can be checked at www.shef.ac.uk/archaeology/staff/umberto-umberto-publications.html