I got a letter on a lonesome day: The anatomy of a dispute with the Keeper of Irish Antiquities

Regular readers of this blog may just have an inkling that I have a tendency towards the controversial and downright provocative. I realise that it’s hard to believe such notions from a blog that has published posts on both swastikas and cock rings (though not at the same time … yet). Still, it may come as a surprise that a little piece I published on February 6 2019 called ‘Archaeological Archives for Sale! Buy it or bin it!’ ruffled a few feathers. While I would urge you to go back and read this minor masterpiece, the TL;DR version is that under the guise of putting all the archaeological archives I still hold (but have never been funded to completion) up for sale, I wanted to highlight a real issue in Irish field archaeology. Simply put, this is the well-known fact that many excavation directors are forced to hold onto excavation archives in their own homes and at their own expense for many years, even past the point of any hope for their eventual publication. Some of what I was holding on to was originally excavated almost 19 years previously and had been resident in my home for pretty much the same length. In my case, these archives were initially moved there to facilitate writing up the excavation reports, but the archaeological consultancy I was contracted to were tardy in paying for essential post-excavation analyses, including radiocarbon dates. Instead, they were keen for me to move on and direct the excavation of further sites for them and there was the eternal promise that if I waited just a little longer, funding would be forthcoming. Like a fool, I believed them. Eventually, that consultancy ceased trading and I was left with the archives and my foolish hope.

Before we go any further, I need the reader to be aware of one important fact. The way that archaeological excavations are licenced in Ireland is badly broken. As far as my understanding goes, the concept of the Excavation Licence as a contract between an individual (the ‘Licensed Archaeologist’) and the Irish State goes back to the 1930 National Monuments Act. In 1930 the only archaeological excavations envisaged would have been pretty limited – a few university Profs on their summers and the odd excursion by Museum curators to investigate stuff found by farmers ploughing their fields – that kind of thing. Even when the legislation was updated in 1994 (when commercial consultancies had existed for some time) there was nothing that could have predicted the ‘Celtic Tiger’ years of rapid expansion and development. More importantly, the legal apparatus of the Excavation Licence as one binding the individual to the state remained. This is important because it utterly failed to take account of the actual position of excavation director (the Licenced Archaeologist) as merely an employee of an individual consultancy. So, while the consultancies were taking the profits and making all the financial decisions about excavation, post-ex, and publication, the excavation director was the one left holding the can. One of the conditions of the licence application was that the Licenced Archaeologist could confirm that adequate funds were available for post-ex analyses and bring the site to publication. Quite apart from how nebulous the question of ‘adequate funds’ would be for a site that has yet to be excavated, the simple reality is that most site directors would have had no insight into the finances of the excavation, nor did their employers want or allow them to. Did I apply for excavation licences in full realisation that I had neither the insight or authority to honestly answer that question? Yes. Did other archaeologists do the same? Absolutely! Were archaeological consultancies complicit in this activity? Utterly! Did this happen with the knowledge and connivance of the licencing authorities? Almost certainly! This situation was common knowledge within field archaeology and if anyone within the licencing authorities claims they did not know they must have kept themselves peculiarly under informed. Certainly, no one on the government side ever made a move to change it.  The first time I saw the situation articulated in print was in an article in Archaeology Ireland by Mandal & O’Carroll (2008). They clearly outlined the asymmetric nature of the power dynamic between the Developer, the archaeological consultancy, and the individual Licenced Archaeologist as well as suggesting ways to address the situation. To the best of my knowledge, the licencing authorities have never acted on this and this ridiculous and grossly unfair situation continues.

Sorry – that was a slightly longer diversion than I had intended, but it is important to be aware of the situation.

Anyway! On with our tale! The blog post was published on February 6 and by February 8 The Keeper of Irish Antiquities at the National Museum had been made aware of it and had put pen to paper in reply. She first reminded me that these objects were the property of the Irish State – something I never denied. She obviously had a quick look through the files and was able to confirm that I was bad as this was the first time in 20 years I’d mentioned to them that there were problems in funding post-excavation research and publication. I do hope that they hadn’t been labouring under the misapprehension that I was still diligently working away on these reports for nearly two decades? Perhaps they’d gone so far as to station a sentry to wait on the morning’s post in the eternal hope that this would be the day the Balgatheran I report finally arrived! We’ll never know! The letter ended with this overly long sentence: “We would ask that you contact us by return with complete listings of the archaeological objects (including animal bone, human remains and flots from environmental samples) and their current locations along with an assessment of their documentation and storage with a view to future deposition as part of the National collection.” I don’t know about you, but that sounds like quite a bit of work! Back when I was a full-time archaeologist, I undertook much unpaid work ‘for the good of the profession’. It had a damaging effect on my health as well as my personal relationships. Hours spent doing additional research for commercial projects that couldn’t be billed for but was what the site really needed, evenings spent peer-reviewing publications for no pay. Not a single bit of it ever did me any good and I have resolved never to do it again. So, when a letter, already overabundant in the use of the Royal ‘We’, arrives instructing me to carry out unpaid work, my reaction was always going to be less than positive.

Rather than replying immediately & angrily, I allowed some time for my emotions to settle and responded on February 17 (reproduced in full at the end of this piece). The essential points here are my contention that while the burdens placed on the individual employee, but exempting the employer from all responsibility, are consistent with the legislation, it is simply unfair. I explain that there is good reason they have no correspondence from me on this matter as to have done so without the approval of the archaeological consultancy in question would have been a disciplinary matter, probably leading to my being fired. Despite this, I did attempt to reach out to the Chief Archaeologist of the day about the situation, but received no support. I also enquired if they retained any correspondence from the consultancy on these matters. I state that it is well known that this consultancy had ceased trading several years previously and that several archives were in the possession of individual directors. However, the licencing authorities had not once come to enquire as to the whereabouts of this material. I asked if their reason for coming forward now was because I had written about it publicly, or if this was part of a wider effort to establish the whereabouts of all unpublished archives. In the final paragraph I suggest that I would happily provide the lists and catalogues requested, once we can come to an arrangement over payment for my time to complete such. I realise that public servants don’t receive payment for the efforts they put into their day jobs, and only do it for the love of the profession, but some of us have bills to pay! Finally, and somewhat crucially, I ask that we come to some kind of legally binding agreement that, once the Museum takes possession of this material they commit to a fully-funded schedule of research and publication of this material. Otherwise, what’s the difference if these archives rot in my attic or in a museum store?

Was this the most deferential and respectful letter I could have written? No, No it wasn’t. But then again, it wasn’t intended to be. I was frustrated that after two decades no one in authority actually cares about this material – so long as we keep silent, the licencing authorities are content to turn a blind eye to the situation. While I’m clearly in no position to dictate how people write letters, I do think that the Keeper of Irish Antiquities could have gone for a better tone than she chose. She could have gone for something conciliatory, noting that the Museum is underfunded and overstretched and that while the system isn’t perfect, could we not strive for an arrangement that benefits us all. Could have. Didn’t.

Instead, I received a letter dated March 27 that (reverting firmly to the personal ‘I’) delivered all the nuance and subtly of an IED. First, I get copy-pasta’d a section of the 1994 Act and a ‘request’ to ‘immediately’ remove my February 6 blog post. She takes issue with the thought that the framing of the current legislation is unfair on individual archaeologists. She attempts to deflect my question about whether or not the Museum had correspondence from the consultancy discussing problems in funding post-ex and publication, by stating that the Museum holds copies of the excavation licence as well as licences to alter & export etc. Bizarrely, she claims to be unaware of a situation where excavations carried out by my former employers were never completed and reports submitted. Maybe I’m wrong here and I’m the statistical outlier … maybe all the other excavations on the Drogheda Bypass scheme were fully funded and published as well as sundry others carried out by this particular consultancy. Maybe! Basically, there’s lots of finger wagging and repeated calls to this flawed and discredited piece of legislation, but no attempt at honesty or accommodation. All this would have been bad enough, but the Keeper of Irish Antiquities then goes on to accuse me, saying that “It is completely unacceptable for you to attempt to extract public monies for discharging duties to which you signed up under the terms of the excavation licence.” Her reasoning, such as it is, is that I signed an excavation licence 20 years ago as a requirement of my then job and that gives her the authority to still order me to undertake work for zero pay all this time later. Can you imagine in any other walk of life that someone would think that this was even remotely acceptable?

“Hey! Dave! I know you’ve not heard from me for nearly 20 years, but when you worked for me all those years ago you did promise to unblock the toilet if it ever needed doing … I know you work for another company now and have a completely different role, but could you come back tomorrow afternoon and take care of it? You said you would! Also, I’m not paying you for it! … Dave? … Dave? …” My reaction – then as now – was that she should give her head a wee wobble! However, seeing that she is so intent on quoting legislation at me, I would refer the learned individual to the celebrated case of Arkell v. Pressdram.

In summation, she notes that “I request that you comply with my request (sic. Honestly!) to (1) provide us with a copy of information relating to these and (2) remove the advertisement for sale of archaeological objects immediately.” In a final paragraph, presumably intended to make me forget the entirety of the previous page and appear (even belatedly) accommodating, I am assured of her willingness to cooperate “for the sake of the archaeological objects”. She offers her dedicated work email asking me to arrange a meeting. She even says ‘please’.

I’m not entirely unreasonable and awkward. I responded on April 5 (Reproduced in full below) to say that I’d be happy to meet and discuss the matter sensibly. However, before that could happen there was much to discuss and get sorted. Despite all the Keeper of Irish Antiquities’ copy-pasta of legislation and general bluster that the state had not waived its right to these archives, I argued that “As the Irish state has not enquired after their wellbeing or whereabouts for two decades, I don’t feel that you have much ground to stand on here. ... Through your inaction and negligence your organisation has ceded all rights over this material.” Regarding the blog post, I simply stated that it would be clear to readers that it was not a genuine offer to sell this material, “but a deliberately provocative post to bring attention to this situation where site archives are left to decay in private properties” and politely refused to comply. In all our correspondence since that time she has not once returned to this flawed tactic. In thinking on it now, I do wonder about the propriety of the original ‘request’. What would have happened if some other public servant had emailed, say, The Irish Times or The Independent newspapers demanding that they remove an item from their website? Even if the civil servant had misunderstood the context and purpose of the piece, wouldn’t such an action be ‘career limiting’? Maybe someone should look into that.

In my response I again note that several questions have been asked, but not answered. These are given in tabular form in the August 24 letter (below), so I’ll not reiterate them here. Suffice it to say, that no answer to these has ever been forthcoming.

I, understandably, reserved my greatest anger and disdain for the Keeper of Irish Antiquities’ unfair, unwarranted, and wounding remarks that I was some kind of “lowlife embezzler” (my term, paraphrasing her comments). I demanded a full retraction and apology. “Whatever notion you may have of my former obligations under the excavation licence, they were taken on solely as part of my role as a paid employee of the archaeological consultancy – not as a charitable act and certainly not one where you retained the power to direct me to carry out unpaid labour on your behalf two decades later. ... To be clear – I will not undertake any work on your behalf without appropriate payment.” Dependant on the retraction and apology, I noted that I was still willing to meet to reach a mutually agreeable solution, just so long as we could tear ourselves away from insisting I adhere to my side of an agreement from 20 years ago when they have clearly not lived up to theirs.

I’m not really sure what happened after that. All was silent. I wonder if I just exasperated them into silence or, perhaps, the email never arrived. Because I’m totally the type of person who seeks to poke the bear, I sent a second copy of the email in early July and received a reply on August 2.

This was very different in tone. And much shorter too! It simply stated that that the Museum and National Monuments planned to meet me “with a view to progressing this issue and taking possession of the archaeological objects in question.” They asked for a range of acceptable dates and agreed that we could meet in Belfast. There was neither retraction of nor apology for the Keeper of Irish Antiquities’ shameful slur against my character. There wasn’t even a pretence at answering my repeated questions.

My response of August 24 was simple – retract and apologise for your earlier remarks and answer the repeatedly asked, but just as repeatedly unanswered questions regarding the correspondence that the museum holds with the now-defunct archaeological consultancy regarding issues with funding; why the former Chief Archaeologist never took action even after the matter was brought to his attention; is this correspondence with me part of a wider effort to secure archives in private keeping or am I solely being targeted. Of course, the final point – and the whole crux of this issue – is: can we not admit that if there is no plan to research and publish this material that the physical loss of the archive is immaterial? – without the funding to bring it to completion and publication it may as well have been dumped.

Turnaround was clearly getting quicker as I received a reply dated September 4. Well, that was something that was getting better. The letter starts by informing me that “This correspondence has been brought to the attention of the Director of the National Museum of Ireland and the Chief Archaeologist …” Which is the equivalent of “I’m tellin’ yer Ma about ye!” If the intention was to inspire fear and provoke immediate compliance, it was sorely misjudged. After that I get some more waffle using the Royal ‘We’ about the National Monuments Act, followed by the repeated statement that “we are happy to facilitate you by travelling to a location convenient for you where you can hand the material over to the National Museum.” So, while the demand to create lists and catalogues has been dropped, I’m still expected to spend my own time and effort manhandling the archives out from under the eaves and have them packed, waiting to be collected just out of the sheer goodness of my heart. Er … no.

If there’s one thing worse than being insulted, it’s being hit with an obviously fake apology. The last paragraph doesn’t attempt to disguise that there is no retraction of the Keeper of Irish Antiquities’ odious slur, merely expresses “regret that you have felt injured” … yep! It wasn’t the awfulness of what I said, it was that you felt hurt by it. Just so we’re in no doubt that this is all my fault, I’m informed that “That correspondence arose out of social media posts that you have made in relation to the material” So … yeah … totally deserve to be branded as an extortionist for looking to be paid for doing work because I had the temerity to write a blog post about it! Makes total sense. Finally, she tries to sell me the upside to all this – if I hand it all over now for nothing then I won’t have to worry about it in the future! While this is unarguably true, I would counter that if we just agreed that there’s no intention to further analyse or publish this material, dumping it all in landfill will similarly relieve me of “any burdens in regard to its further storage and conservation”.

I took a little time to consider my response (September 21 & presented in full below). Frankly, I have to ask what I want out of this. True, I’d like to ensure that the archives I currently hold are safe for the future. But what does ‘safe for the future’ really mean? If there’s no costed and scheduled plan in place to bring these sites from their current state and into some form of wider publication, what’s the point of them mouldering in some museum storage facility and not in my attic? Beyond that – what’s the point of keeping them at all? Perhaps I should just drop them off at the dump? Perhaps we should never have bothered excavating them in the first place?

But, I’m quite serious about the other points too – there are several questions, all of which have been repeatedly ignored by the Museum. I am especially serious about requiring a retraction and proper apology for the Keeper of Irish Antiquities’ scandalous accusations. As none of these appear to be forthcoming, I noted that “no further correspondence will be entered into with you until such time as these matters are resolved.” I had rather hoped that either the Chief Archaeologist or the Director of the Museum would have shown some leadership here and stepped forward, but in the three months since sending my reply I have heard nothing from either of them.

Why am I going public now?

First of all, I believed that this was an important issue when I published the blog post in February – maybe I am alone in all of Irish archaeology in that I still foolishly hang on to archives in my home. But I think I’m not. I still maintain that it’s an important issue that the licencing authorities are turning a blind eye to and hoping that everyone either keeps quiet or meekly acquiesces to their demands. If you’re into taking on unpaid work to help out the Museum, then fair play to you. I’m not. I’ve had enough of ‘for the good of the profession’ – it’s just a scam! Having gone through this exchange of fire with the Keeper of Irish Antiquities, I think it’s valuable that the wider profession know what kind of people are employed in our national institutions and how they can reconcile their organisation’s dereliction of duty under the National Monuments Act with still insisting that private individuals adhere to its letter. Finally, I am making this correspondence public in the hope that it will deliver a much needed kick up the fundament to the Director of the National Museum of Ireland and the Chief Archaeologist to provide real answers, a real apology, and a genuine way to resolve this issue.

Reference

Mandal, S. & O’Carroll, F. 2008 ‘Time for a rethink?’ Archaeology Ireland 22.2, 38-39.

Notes

The first part of the title of this post is taken from Bob Dylan’s song ‘Boots of Spanish Leather’ from his 1964 album The Times They Are A-Changin’. But, of course, you knew that.

My resolve not to engage the Keeper of Irish Antiquities in any further correspondence until a full and, now, public apology and retraction are issued still stands.

I didn't take the last blog post down. I'll not be taking this one down either.

Appendices

Letter: February 17 2019

Dear Ms Sikora,

Thank you for your letter of Feb 8 2019.

Thank you too for reminding me that the objects in question are property of the Irish state, though I made no claim otherwise. While I will concede that excavation licences were granted to me and that a duty of care was part of that agreement, all financial & logistical aspects of the excavations were controlled by the now defunct archaeological consultancy who employed me. It is unrealistic and discriminatory to expect private individuals to fund such upkeep on behalf of the state indefinitely and without recompense.

You note that you have no correspondence from me on this topic. This is unsurprising as it was the policy of the archaeological consultancy that all communication with official bodies be from them and not via the individual site director. Any problems the consultancy encountered in processing these sites in a timely manner should have been directed to you from them. Might I enquire what correspondence you have from them on this matter? Although my collection of saved correspondence regarding these sites is rather sparse (house moves, computer disk crashes etc. have all taken a toll), I do retain a copy of an email that (in defiance of their edict) was sent to the then Chief Archaeologist regarding the post-ex situation, but it did not bring any form of resolution.

Over the years there was a long and, at times, ‘lively’ correspondence with that consultancy over the post-excavation work for these sites and my attempts to be paid for the same. It is also a matter of public record that the archaeological consultancy in question ceased trading some time ago. Further, it is common knowledge that a large number of excavations carried out under their auspices were never completed. And yet, in all this time I have never once been approached by your organisation in relation to these sites or the whereabouts of their archives. I would ask if you are sending similarly concerned letters to all other archaeologists who have unpublished sites, or is it just the ones who write blog posts about it?

I will happily comply with your request to provide a detailed listing of all the materials held, once we can come to an arrangement regarding payment for my time and effort. Further, I will allow access to your representatives to come and collect the material at a convenient time, once there is a detailed and legally binding schedule in place for the outstanding analyses, research, and publication of these sites.

R M Chapple

Letter: April 5 2019

Robert M Chapple,

April 5 2019

Dear Ms Sikora,

Thank you for your letter of March 27 (received 5 April) I would dearly love to meet with you in person and discuss this matter reasonably.

You note that the state has not waived its rights to these items. As the Irish state has not enquired after their wellbeing or whereabouts for two decades, I don’t feel that you have much ground to stand on here. Had I left so much as a handkerchief in the care of another and not enquired after it for two decades, I could have no expectation of any rights over it at this late stage. Through your inaction and negligence your organisation has ceded all rights over this material. As for removing the blog post, I think it is clear to readers that it is not a genuine advertisement of items for sale, but a deliberately provocative post to bring attention to this situation where site archives are left to decay in private properties. Thank you for asking, but I will not remove it.

Your comments regarding who is responsible for the upkeep of these archives are difficult to follow. You say that there is no expectation by the state that this burden should fall to an individual, but in the same breath claim that the original excavation licence requires that I do just that. And if you believe that it is acceptable for a government agency to demand that a private individual house and maintain archaeological archives for decades – after they’ve left the profession and the company who controlled the finances and took the profits has ceased to trade – all without any form of recompense, you would appear not to understand the definition of ‘discriminatory’.

Thank you for clarifying what correspondence you do have on file regarding these sites. I take it from your silence that you do not have any correspondence from the archaeological consultancy regarding ‘difficulties around the funding of post-excavation relating to these excavations’ as you seemed to expect of me in your previous letter. Will you be following this up with the directors of that former company, or will you confine yourself to haranguing me? You ignore my previous comment that I did attempt to contact the then Chief Archaeologist regarding the post-ex situation, but no action was taken by the state authorities. I don’t wish to speculate as to why you appear unaware of other incomplete excavations carried out under the auspices of this now defunct archaeological consultancy, but there are several.

How dare you describe my request for fair payment as ‘completely unacceptable’ and an ‘attempt to extract public monies’ as though I was some form of lowlife embezzler. You will retract this and apologise. Whatever notion you may have of my former obligations under the excavation licence, they were taken on solely as part of my role as a paid employee of the archaeological consultancy – not as a charitable act and certainly not one where you retained the power to direct me to carry out unpaid labour on your behalf two decades later. I am not sure how you run the museum, but I doubt you’d get so much as a toilet cleaned in the place if you refused to pay the worker for their labour. To be clear – I will not undertake any work on your behalf without appropriate payment.

I say again – in almost twenty years I’ve not had a single contact from your organisation inquiring as to the location or condition of the artefacts, the state of the post-excavation work, or the readiness of the final reports. It is clear that the organisation you lead has been negligent in its duties, yet you expect me to adhere to the letter of the excavation licence. In my previous letter I asked you a direct question that you have failed to address: ‘I would ask if you are sending similarly concerned letters to all other archaeologists who have unpublished sites, or is it just the ones who write blog posts about it?’ Can you please answer this now – am I the only archaeologist with unpublished sites that you have made contact with, or have you written to all people in the same category to reiterate supposed obligations?

You also ignored my request that you bring forward ‘a detailed and legally binding schedule … for the outstanding analyses, research, and publication of these sites.’ This cuts to the heart of the issue here – if there is no plan in place to finish the analyses and research into these sites, what is the point in holding on to this material? Are we not better off being honest and simply dumping it now? Despite your tone, I am willing to meet with you to resolve this matter – dependent on your apology and retraction requested above – if you have anything more to offer than insisting on my supposed responsibilities from two decades ago. I am available at my home in Belfast most evenings and weekends and will give consideration to any date you suggest.

R M Chapple

Letter: August 24 2019

Robert M Chapple,

24 August 2019

Dear Ms Sikora,

Thank you for your letter of August 2nd (Received August 12th)

To reiterate the opening line of my last letter to you: “I would dearly love to meet with you in person

and discuss this matter reasonably.”

However, no meeting can take place until you retract and apologise for your earlier comments where you labelled my legitimate expectation of payment for work carried out on your instruction as ‘completely unacceptable’ and an ‘attempt to extract public monies’. This is not negotiable.

I am still waiting for answers to a number of questions, repeatedly posed:

1) What is the nature of the correspondence you hold from the archaeological consultancy regarding ‘difficulties around the funding of post-excavation relating to these excavations’.

2) Will you be following up with the Directors of that consultancy?

3) Can you explain why no action was taken by the then Chief Archaeologist when I brought this matter to his attention?

4) Is your correspondence with me part of a wider effort to contact Excavation Directors with unpublished sites, or am I alone being targeted?

5) Will you now commit to a producing ‘a detailed and legally binding schedule … for the outstanding analyses, research, and publication of these sites.’ Or can we agree that without such a plan this material is worthless and can safely be dumped with no adverse impact?

Once these questions have been adequately answered and full and unequivocal apology issued, I am sure I can offer you a date and time to meet.

R M Chapple

Letter: September 21 2019

21 September 2019

Dear Ms Sikora,

Thank you for your letter of September 4th.

I am delighted that my humble correspondence has been brought to the attention of the director of the museum and the chief archaeologist. I trust this item will also be brought before them so they too can read my words.

I believed that I was quite clear when I explained that no meeting would happen until I received a full apology for your earlier comments. Specifically, you described my reasonable expectation to be paid for works carried out at your orders as ‘completely unacceptable’ and an ‘attempt to extract public monies’. Your stated ‘regret’ is no apology and is not accepted as one. Your apparent suggestion that your insults are my fault for having published a blog post about the situation are simply shameful and beneath contempt.

Until a full apology and retraction of these remarks is made, I will be unable to correspond with you on this matter. Once that apology had been made and accepted, I expect answers to my repeatedly posed questions:

1) What is the nature of the correspondence you hold from the archaeological consultancy regarding ‘difficulties around the funding of post-excavation relating to these excavations’.

2) Will you be following up with the Directors of that consultancy?

3) Can you explain why no action was taken by the then Chief Archaeologist when I brought this matter to his attention?

4) Is your correspondence with me part of a wider effort to contact Excavation Directors with unpublished sites, or am I alone being targeted?

5) Will you now commit to a producing ‘a detailed and legally binding schedule … for the outstanding analyses, research, and publication of these sites.’ Or can we agree that without such a plan this material is worthless and can safely be dumped with no adverse impact?

Only at that point will we be in a position to meet and discuss the handover of this material.

Obviously, a major point of this discussion will entail the appropriate level of fees for carrying out this work at your command.

I completely understand if you do not feel like presenting an appropriate apology, but I am quite serious – no further correspondence will be entered into with you until such time as these matters are resolved.

R M Chapple