Response paper to Ian Hodder’s “Ethics and Archaeology” Essay

Ian Hodder’s article, â€Å"Ethics and Archaeology: The Attempt at Eatalhoyuk,† basically discusses in detail the different roles that archaeologists assume during an excavation and also their ethical obligation and duty to the different communities on the site. Hodder claimed that the roles of archaeologists are not only limited to studying human culture through unearthing, recovering, documenting, analyzing, and interpreting remains, historical objects, artifacts, and landscapes. In addition, he also claimed that they do not also work solely to serve the interest of their benefactors and sponsors. Rather, Hodder stated that archaeologists have bigger roles and wider responsibilities to the different sectors of the excavation site. In short, aside from the interest of their sponsors and other organizations that fund the digs, Hodder believes that it is also the duty of archaeologists to reach to the multiple communities, interest groups, or stakeholders of any excavation site. In his paper, Hodder mainly focused his arguments on the Eatalhoyuk excavation site where is the director of the archaeological dig. According to him, the stakeholders of most sites can be narrowed to four: the politicians, the local residents, the New Age Goddess followers, and the artists. Hodder noted each of these communities has its own agenda or interest and it is part of the archaeologist’s duty to somehow satisfy them. One of the stakeholders that are common to almost all archaeological sites is the politicians or those in the seat of power. Generally, based on Hodder’s paper, all politicians support archaeological digs have their own agenda or interests. These may involve governors, mayors, or government representatives from the surrounding area of the site. Hodder claimed that although a lot of these politicians hail the archaeological site for its richness in history, culture, and identity, among others, their interests mainly lie on a single thing— widespread publicity. While the politicians’ desire to be seen on television or read on the newspapers is normal, Hodder stressed that it is the archaeologist’s role to limit the ways in which they use the site for their personal motives. He also stated that archaeologists should also verify every piece of information that a politician gives to the public about the site. For example, there are certain politicians who claim to be descendants of the site’s residents and speak about his or her origins. In this case, it is the archaeologists’ responsibility to verify these claims and ensure that they are true. Another community that has its own interests is the local residents. According to Hodder, in general, these residents, who have low incomes and limited education, mainly have practical concerns such as earning money for helping in the excavation. However, they are also concerned about the history of the sites and how they contributed to their identity. In this regard, Hodder stated in his paper that is archaeologists job to educate them about their cultural history and identity using solid evidence found on the digs. In turn, these local residents may relate their personal experiences from living in the site’s environment to tourists and researchers as these are helpful information. The New Age Goddess groups, on the other hand, mainly go to excavation sites, such as in Eatalhoyuk, to pray and to practice their beliefs which are in honor of their Goddess, which was a highly significant figure in the past. Their main concerns, according to Hodder, would mostly be regarding the history of the Goddess and the role of women in the Eatalhoyuk’s past. Thus, the archaeologists should try to address these concerns and provide evidence that would show how women lived in the communities of Eatalhoyuk thousands of years ago. By doing so, Hodder surmised that this would not only serve the Goddess’ groups interests but also avoid any misinformation regarding the site’s history. Finally, another sector that has shown significsnt interest in Eatalhoyuk is the artists group. Hodder noted that over the past years, more and more artists have arrived at Eatalhoyuk mainly to create works about the site. However, he claimed that there are also certain artists who help in the interpretation, reconstruction, and visualization of the art objects found in the site. Hodder stated that the main concern of this group is whether the objects unearthed during digs and excavations could be considered art or not. Meaning to say, most of these artists are particularly interested in identifying and describing the works of art recovered from sites. In this regard, the archaeologists involved, according to Hodder, should ensure that these works of art or aesthetic objects are verified to be genuine using past studies and other evidence found on the site. Certain artists also inquire about the role that art played in the history of Eatalhoyuk and it is the archaeologist’s duty to satisfy those questions to the best of his or her abilities. In short, what Hodder was trying to point out in his paper was that archeologists should always consider the agenda and interests of all the groups and sectors concerned during an excavation as it reaps greater rewards and is also more ethical than serving only personal interests. Personally, I agree with Hodder’s claims in his paper. His use of historical evidence and real life situations make his arguments very convincing. I also think it is unethical for archaeologists to go on digs mainly to become famous or serve their own interests only. Rather than setting one agenda, I believe it is important to work with different communities as exemplified by Hodder’s work in Eatalhoyuk as there are greater things at stake. Since archaeologist’s experiences firsthand what it’s like to be in an excavation site or dig, he or she should use his or her knowledge and skill to verify all the information and answer all the questions surrounding an archaeological site. This is not only professional obligation but also an ethical duty. Works Cited Hodder, Ian. â€Å"Ethics and Archaeology: The Attempt at Eatalhoyuk. † Near Easter Archaeology 65 No. 3 (2002): 174-181.