This text deals with the ethics of archaeology understood as monuments conservation. The author attempts to show that understanding archaeology in this manner is crucial to understanding the contemporary role of archaeology and the resolution of the ethical dilemmas created for the discipline by the fulfilling of that role. The author attempts to answer several questions:

• Whose responsibility is the protection of the archaeological heritage?
• What is the cultural value inherent in archaeological remains?
• In what way should these values be recognised and who is to do this?
• Who is the recipient of these cultural values?
• How can the threat to the archaeological heritage be eliminated?

We are all responsible for the effects of our actions on others, and the effects of human activities on the natural environment, but are we equally responsible for the past, or rather the remains left by the activities of people of the past? From the viewpoint of modern ethics, it would seem that this heritage also has the same rights to protection as the natural environment.

The archaeological heritage is constantly under threat of destruction, since it is sensitive to many routine operations, such as ploughing or building . Once destroyed, it can never be replaced. Much of the archaeological heritage is unspectacular or is invisible, hidden below the surface of the soil. In this it is unlike other categories of historical monument, such as architectural ruins etc. This ‘modesty’ of the archaeological evidence prevents it from being immediately visible, and allows sites to be destroyed without the public even noticing. This means that the archaeological heritage is the most defenceless and among the most threatened category of cultural property.

The archaeological heritage should be protected since it is a source of information about the unwritten past. Archaeological remains are, however, more than just a source for scientific research, but, apart from their cognitive value have an emotional content. The European Convention speaks of the archaeological heritage as a “source of the collective memory”. As such it is an element of the cultural heritage of all mankind.

As the Valetta Convention warns, the archaeological heritage is seriously threatened, and while in Poland for example the problem is not new, the destruction is on the increase. The construction of motorways, bypasses and gas pipelines threaten large areas of archaeological sites. The improvement of the state of the Polish economy is accompanied by the construction of new buildings. Privatisation of former state property and at the same time a pauperisation of segments of society and a low degree of respect for the law leads to new threats to sites. The increase of treasure-hunting and collecting of antiquities from land and underwater sites is also disturbing.

This raises the question, are we responsible for this state of affairs? It would seem that the responsibility for the state of the cultural heritage, like that of the natural environment, rests not just with those who threaten it, but with all citizens. The task of the conservation services is to ‘manage’ the protection of the heritage by the whole society.

Archaeologists have an especial responsibility to protect the heritage.

Many archaeologists see their role in monument protection as restricted simply to the conducting of rescue excavations. The search for knowledge by excavation is however a destructive process. With the improvement of techniques, our present excavation methods will seem to future generations especially destructive (and ineffective) methods of data gathering.

But as we have seen, archaeologists have the primary duty to protect the archaeological heritage, and excavation is a destructive process. This creates a dilemma, to dig or not to dig unthreatened sites. To dig these sites means to destroy them, to protect them means that archaeologists will not be able to gain new knowledge about the past.

It is not true that archaeology can only develop through excavations; many paradigmatic changes (such as the rise of Processual and later post-Processual archaeology) were not initiated by new discoveries in the field. Modern humanism develops not only through collecting material evidence, but also by theoretical reflection. The significance of this is more important in archaeology, which destroys its sources as it investigates them.

The doctrine of preventative conservation is becoming increasingly widely accepted, this involves not disturbing the substance of a monument, but systematically controlling its state of preservation and reducing the interference of conservators to a minimum. As Professor Andrzej Tomaszewski emphasises, an ‘authentic’ archaeological site is an unexplored site. This doctrine requires us to restrict the amount of new excavation of archaeological sites.

The concept of preservation by documentation was proposed in Polish archaeology by Roman Jakimowicz in 1929. The concept of replacing a site by its documentation must be questioned.

No documentation, no matter how detailed, can contain all the information in a site, it is a subjective interpretation of the explored stratification and derived as the result of a particular excavation method and knowledge and skill of the individual excavator. These are not always of the required standard, such excavations are destruction. Finds and documentation can be lost.

In the case of sites threatened by development, the dilemma to dig or not to dig is more easily resolved. When threatened with destruction, all sites must be excavated, there is no such thing as an “uninteresting” site, or one “of little value”, every archaeological site has the potential of containing an infinite quantity of information. The quantity of information recovered is, however, dependent on the questions posed by the archaeologist and the methods chosen to investigate the site. Does the imminent destruction of a site mean that standards of excavation can be lowered in the interests of commercialism? We should resist such tendencies toward the erosion of our values and professional ethics.

The above arguments lead to the formulation of the concept of excavation as the final resort, a solution to be adopted only in the case of a site threatened with destruction when all other measures to save it have failed. At the same time it is difficult to deny that some excavation of unthreatened sites is necessary to allow the discipline to develop, but such work should be the exception rather than the rule, and always conducted to a high technical standard. Decisions to undertake work of this nature should be confirmed by a highly-qualified advisory committee of academics aiding the provincial conservators.

This introduces the concept of the management of the heritage, a deliberate, reflective and responsible programme of allowing the destruction of selected fragments of the archaeological heritage through excavation and the conservation of the rest.

The archaeologist has a role to play in preventative conservation, conservation archaeology is becoming a branch of the discipline. One of the ways in which he can be involved is the monitoring of the state of known sites whether investigated or not. Another way is to aid compile a database on the extent of the archaeological resources through various means of prospection etc.

This requires an alteration of the mentality of archaeologists, who has to accept that the function of archaeology is to serve the needs of the heritage and not to exploit it, and must be subject to the same ethical requirements as other branches of conservation. The role of the archaeologist is not restricted to the conducting of rescue excavations, but also by various means to take an active role in the preventative conservation of the heritage.

While the archaeologist is especially responsible for the protection of the heritage, the role of the general public should not be forgotten. The public can take an active part in the protection of particular monuments, but also in the fight against measures detrimental to the heritage. The task of the archaeologist is to keep the public informed about the aims of the discipline and the need to conserve the fragile archaeological heritage.