INTRODUCTION

This article constitutes a reply to Zbigniew Kobyliński’s attempted answer (2001c) in the Polish archaeological journal Archeologia Polski to criticisms contained in the present author’s review published in volume 45 of that journal. The review concerned a collection (Kobyliński ed. 1998) of translations of international documents on the protection and conservation of the archaeological heritage. The reviewer justifies his original critical attitude to this work and answers some of the additional points introduced into the argument by Kobyliński. The present text was originally submitted to Archeologia Polski to appear in a subsequent volume, but has recently (May 2003) been returned unpublished by the editor who was unable to find a place in that publication for corrections to misleading remarks introduced by the polemist into the original discussion. Nevertheless, the nature of some of the comments already published by that journal quite clearly require a reply. The opinions expressed here are my own and neither ArchWEB (ArchTerra) nor Poznań Archaeological Museum, the owner of this server, is responsible for the information which in good faith they have made available in this form, for which I am grateful to them.

SUMMARY

Dr Zbigniew Kobylinski (2001c), defends the book International Principles of the Protection and Conservation of the Archaeological Heritage (Kobyliński red. 1998) against the criticism of the way it was produced which were contained in a review published in a previous number of Archeologia Polski (Barford 2000). This is an answer to those comments, most of which however may be dismissed as either completely missing the point or merely regrettably stooping to the level of graceless personal attacks aiming to discredit the reviewer without addressing the concrete issues in question. It may be remarked that this seems typical of much of what has passed for „discussion” of these topics in recent years in Poland. The examples chosen by the polemist to show that criticism of the translation of the texts into Polish were „groundless” do not in fact do so, the book demonstrably contains errors of translation. The work’s editor claimed that all relevant texts were included, but in the review it was shown that this is not so, in the same way it was stated that the book contains the complete texts, but in several cases parts of the documents have been edited out as „unimportant” but without indicating where this has occurred. There is no critical apparatus allowing the documents to be seen in their context nor in relation to each other or the documents not included in the selection. There is merely a three-page introduction which does not seem to have been particularly well thought-out. The general impression is of a work produced in a hurry and on a shoestring budget, and yet it is the product (paid for with the taxpayer’s money) of the central government organization responsible for the protection of the Polish national heritage together with the Scientific Association of Polish archaeologists, and so - it is maintained here - we could have expected much better.¹

The discussion contains the following points:

1) It is true as Dr Kobyliński notes, that in one place through an oversight I refer to a Polish publication of official documents by an inaccurate title and I wrote of a Convention as a „Charter” in one place. I apologise to my readers.

2) I did not see that one other document in the reviewed collection referred to the limitation of the area of archaeological investigations within a site other than the one I mentioned. This does not however change the sense of what I wrote. It should however be pointed out that the statement in the English summary to the original article (Kobyliński 2001c, 132) that my original review contained a criticism of the principle of limiting the destructiveness of excavation to a minimum and the priority of preservation of the archaeological heritage (sic) in situ does not in any way correspond to what I actually wrote in my review and appears to be intended to lead the foreign reader astray as to the real nature of the discussion.

3) Z. Kobyliński considers my reviewing of this book to be unethical because at one time I was one of several people working in the same office as some of those who prepared it. This argument seems special pleading because I am not credited anywhere in the book with actually being responsible for any part of its compilation, and neither do I regard myself as in any way responsible for the form it was given by the publishers and the person whose name appears on the cover.

4) Z. Kobyliński is indignant about my comments in my review about the difference between ’preservation’ and ’management’ when applied to cultural landscapes. The misunderstanding however appears to be his, as I try to demonstrate. While such misunderstandings persist, this point obviously needs further discussion in Poland.

5) There seems also to be a fundamental difference in understanding of the term ’cultural landscape’ which is used by Z. Kobyliński in the reviewed text in a far more narrow sense than in the English-speaking world which is the origin of much of the theoretical writing which is being applied in Poland. This seems likely to lead to misunderstandings and again is an issue which requires clarification.

6) The reviewed book supposedly contains the „entire” texts of the translated documents, but they are not in fact complete, fragments have been deleted without indicating what has been removed from where, which those not familiar with the originals may find misleading. One example is discussed, the Code of Conduct of the (British) Institute of Field Archaeologists. Z. Kobyliński tries to place the blame for the translation of an out-of-date version on others, while himself claiming to be the sole person who „selected and prepared” (wybrał i opracował) these documents. Since the original text of the document is widely available, I fail to see the logic of this argument.

7) One of the other documents which has been shortened in the reviewed collection is the Valetta document (1992 European Convention on the Protection of the Archaeological Heritage [revised]), which has lost several sections of text, including Article 17 which has had significance in recent British discussions of the document. Discussion of the Valetta document in Poland has been muted compared with that which its ratification was accompanied in the British archaeological community recently.

8) Similarly, despite what Z. Kobyliński would prefer to think, it is indeed untrue as I pointed out in the review that the reviewed collection contains „all” international documents in which archaeology figures.

9) One of the documents missing for example was the 1969 European Convention on the Protection of the Archaeological Heritage which Z. Kobyliński explains by saying it was replaced by the Valetta document, but at the time when the collection was prepared some countries had acceded to the 1969 Convention, but unable for various reasons felt unable to ratify the revised version. This means that both functioned alongside each other and that the overall picture of the „international principles of the protection and conservation of the archaeological heritage” (sic) in even Europe (the European Union) was by no means as coherent as Kobyliński tried to convey to the Polish reader.

10) I commented that many of the „international” principles set out in the reviewed work were Eurocentric, Z. Kobyliński apparently misunderstands „many” for „all” and pours scorn on the reviewer’s „incomplete knowledge of the international context of the protection of historic monuments”. Instead I suggest it means that here also he did not read the text of my review carefully enough before reacting to it. The general timbre of the collection is indeed Eurocentric.

11) He also pours scorn on the idea that was taken for granted in my review that industrial archaeology is also a form of archaeology. He states categorically that it is „just the protection and study of modern industrial monuments” and not archaeology at all - except in name, a name by which in my alleged ignorance I have been misled. While it is true that in POLAND such work is often (though not inevitably) subsumed under the catchall title of „History of material Culture”, there is no doubt that in many other countries the study of industrial sites and landscapes is regarded as part of archaeology and carried out using archaeological methodology. Any consideration of the international context of the management of the archaeological heritage should take this into account, and thus in order to give a better overall picture - whatever the personal prejudices of the editor of such a collection - should have been considered in this collection.

12) In a regrettable, and (one can only suggest) apparently spiteful, distortion of my wording Z. Kobyliński intimates that the reviewer uses the word „Egyptologist” as a synonym of „unprofessionalism” which is of course not what I wrote at all.

13) He goes on to write accusations against my former colleagues in the Department of Egyptology of the University of Warsaw in a manner which makes it seem that this is based on information coming from me. Not only do these words not correspond to anything I think or have ever said about the said department, but these comments (like the previously mentioned ones) have absolutely no place in a discussion of a collection of translations of international documents about archaeological heritage management and it is a mystery to me why the editors of Archeologia Polski allowed publication of such personal (and unverified) remarks as part of such a discussion.

14) In my review I pointed out several places where the texts published in the reviewed work had been translated incorrectly with respect to the originals. Kobyliński takes two of them to prove that I know nothing about what I am writing, but chooses badly for even this pars pro toto approach is insufficient to demonstrate his point that „this criticism is groundless”. While it is true that it is sometimes difficult to find perfect correspondents for all words used in these documents, in the case of the word „inventories” of one and „objects” of another (which are the examples he chooses) this is by no means difficult, and they have clearly been rendered incorrectly in the published translations of these texts. One wonders whether the latter is a case of the „correction” of the wording of the translations to take into account „changes in terminology or the different understanding of certain questions” hinted at in the introduction to the reviewed work and the ethics of which (from the point of view of a translator) were questioned in my review. Obviously a text of this nature written in the terminology of the 1950s cannot be changed to fit modern ideas without at least a footnote explaining the difference between the original wording and its revision in the free translation. Obviously before this work can be used as a basis of discussion, the reader will have to check the translations with the original texts - unfortunately not only do these texts not appear in the reviewed book alongside this translation to facilitate this, but neither is it stated where the reader might find the original text (for example the possibility of referring the reader to the versions freely available in the Internet seems not to have crossed anybody’s mind). 

15) Z. Kobyliński has not understood my point about the publishers of the reviewed book somehow having apparently assumed the copyright of the Polish translation of the Valetta document. The mechanisms of this process remain therefore unexplained. He also states that the document was translated incorrectly by people „having no idea of archaeology” and this has resulted in it being - in his opinion - the least faithfully translated document in the collection. Unfortunately nowhere is it detailed where he regards the Polish translation of this key text to be at fault, but if this is the case it would obviously not be very wise to use it as a basis for discussion. This problem obviously deserves urgent consideration in the Polish archaeological milieu.

16) I commented that this book would have been much more useful if the texts had been given an introduction setting them in context and also footnotes (for example to explain problems with the terminology). Kobyliński’s reply suggests that the book needed no such critical apparatus.

17) „In the interests of veracity” Kobylinski attempts to correct several of the statements contained in my review which he regards as false:
a) He says that the reviewed book was not a publication of the Conservator-General of Historical Monuments as I stated. This is difficult to understand, for I based what I wrote on what it says on the front cover and title page of the reviewed work and point out that there is no apparent reason to treat this in any way different from works which are similarly designated and are specifically accepted by him as publications of the Conservator-General.
b) He claims I get his former official title in the Office of the Conservator-General wrong, but I point to articles which he himself wrote which use the same titulature.
c) He states that the Conservator-General did not function in the name of the Polish Minister of Culture but whatever the wording today, this was the wording of the Polish ancient monuments legislation at the time the text went to print.
In this manner therefore he has failed to prove that this work should not be judged as a product of the central government organ responsible for the organization and administration of aspects of heritage management in Poland in 1998, which is the light in which I assessed it in my review.

18) Z. Kobyliński then turns to some comments I made concerning more general issues raised by considering these texts seen from the very international context which he aims to present to the Polish reader. He first amalgamates parts of two separate thoughts to put words into my mouth which are indeed ridiculous, but fails thereby to answer the points made, which is a pity. I questioned precisely what is meant by the phrasing of the Valetta document: „a source of the European collective memory” which seems to me to raise more questions than it answers. The second point was to ask the reader to consider more closely the idea of the term „archaeological heritage” which also seems to me ambiguous. These are both phrases which figure in the rhetoric of an emerging (?) heritage management system in Poland (in part that of Kobyliński himself) with only a relatively superficial consideration in the Polish archaeological community of their origin and thus significance. While lively discussions on these and similar themes occur in other milieux, Z. Kobyliński apparently would prefer them not to be discussed in Poland.

19) I am accused of writing my review with „the tendency to dismiss Polish achievements which are characteristic of him [i.e.. Mr Barford]” (sic), but it is not clear which particular achievements of the Polish I was expected to praise in writing the review of this book (unless it’s the book itself I was expected to enthusiastically praise despite its obvious faults). Worse however than being dismissive would be the attempt to creates some mythical leading role of Polish conservation. Kobyliński for some reason feels it necessary to remind the Polish reader of some past Polish achievements in this field which the British writer of the review does not find the space in his review of this book to mention in detail. In order however to set them in their context, it is enough to look at the current poor state of the majority of historic monuments in Poland to see the reality which lies behind these claims of success.

20) This leads Z. Kobyliński into a discussion of my not having included in my review (!) a discussion of „non-material values of cultural heritage and the necessity of re-evaluating the traditional concept of authenticity as allegedly contained only in the historic substance”. This (like the last point) would have been very difficult to have fitted into the text of my review, quite apart from the fact that I cannot share Kobyliński’s enthusiasm for this idea in the present context, since surely unauthentic archaeological evidence is of doubtful value as archaeological evidence. The main non-material values embodied in archaeological material seem to me either to be purely aesthetic or to be getting worryingly close to those connected with ahnenerbe and related concepts. I am unclear what point Kobyliński was getting at in this part of his discussion.

21) Z. Kobyliński apparently has a certain vision of Poland’s place in the process of European unification and perceives from my text that I do not have the same views. This however should not automatically lead to the conclusion that „the Reviewer surely does not fully understand the processes operating in the modern world”, which is merely offensive, inasmuch as any of us are capable of understanding the complexities of the world around us. The points I raise about the complex cultural changes taking place in that modern world as a result of those global changes are widely discussed and a matter for concern in heritage management (and other cultural) milieux in other countries, but I doubt whether comments such as that offered by Z. Kobyliński add much to those discussions. It is also naive simply to pour scorn (as does Z. Kobyliński) on the idea that the use of culture in the process of the creation of a United Europe has political dimensions; it is obvious that these should be discussed also by Polish archaeologists who should not be led into thinking that with the disappearance of Communism they can at last practice their discipline in an ’ideology-free’ environment.

Kobyliński discusses many aspects (real or imagined) of my review, but fails to address the main issue, and it is hard to escape the conclusion that this was deliberate and the purpose of creating in his „reply” a smoke-screen of tangential arguments around the main point I made. That point was how tax-payers’ money was spent by the central organ accountable for the organization of the management of (and spending public money on) the historic monuments of Poland on the production of a work which one can only regard as unsuited for fulfilling the role it should. The reviewed work shows signs of having been produced hastily at the cheapest cost, with the predictable effects which such a situation would bring about. As a result the reader cannot trust that the texts have been correctly translated, and the lack of a critical apparatus does not allow the use of this book for any deeper analysis of the contents and significance of these documents. Perhaps those responsible for its production feel that „something is better than nothing” but personally I do not accept that this is the correct approach in this case. It is difficult to believe that if this work were to be produced in the corresponding public institutions in certain other European countries (Germany, England, Holland or the Scandinavian countries) it would have been treated with such carelessness. In this case seeing this particular Polish „achievement” (see point 19) within its European context is particularly apposite, because the reviewed work was apparently prepared in order to make the international forum of discussion available to Polish readers who had not previously been in touch with these documents, and allowing them to take part in the global discussion of these issues. It is my conviction that a reading of this book cannot meet these aims and I remain convinced that from Polish archaeology, the Polish Archaeologists’ Scientific Association and the Office of the Conservator-General of Historical Monuments, one could have expected much more.

Note

¹In order to save publication costs the original English summary submitted to Archeologia Polski ended here with the words: „There seems little point wasting the foreign reader’s time with a detailed summary of the answers to this embarrassingly pseudo-polemic. It should however be pointed out that the statement in the English summary to the original article (Kobyliński 2001c, 132) that my original review contained a criticism of the principle of limiting the destructiveness of excavation to a minimum and the priority of preservation of the archaeological heritage (sic) in situ does not in any way correspond to what I actually wrote in my review and appears to be intended to lead the foreign reader astray as to the real nature of the discussion.” Here though the additional space available in the Internet allows the points made in the Polish text to be summarised in more detail for any foreign reader who might wish to see in more detail how „archaeological” discussions are carried out and critical comment is treated in at least part of the Polish academic milieu.