I had a conversation with my aunt the other day about archaeological excavations. We were talking abou the Hippodrome in Istanbul and she didn't understand why it couldn't be excavated. I told her there were too many other historical monuments surrounding the Hippodrome and on top of the Hippodrome that it would be harmful to try to excavate it. She then asked me, "But aren't we losing knowledge by not excavating a site?" Yes. She was right. We are losing information and knowledge, but the Hippodrome is forever preserved by not being excavated. The outside walls of the Hippodrome in Istanbul have pretty much been defaced over the years. It's covered in posters, graffiti, and it seems that even homes used to be attached to the architectural wonder.

(The Hippodrome in Istanbul. Photo taken by me.)

If the past belongs to the world and the purpose of the past is to learn from it, what can we learn from sites that cannot be excavated? We can hault modern development like subway systems but we can't excavate the Hippodrome? Do governments and archaeologists have an obligation to excavate difficult sites if they can yield rich information?

Lastly, if the Hippodrome is such an important tourist site in Istanbul, how come the Turkish government doesn't try to clean it up a bit? But then again, one could say that the modern affects on the Hippodrome are just mere contributions to the sites' history.

The cult of Archaeology

Hollywood and folklore has created a skewed view of archaeology. Film characters like Indiana Jones and Lara Croft influence the public into believing that archaeology is something that its not. More often than not, when I tell someone that I'm studying archaeology, they don't truly understand what the field is actually about. However, if films like Indiana Jones were never made, many wouldn't know about archaeology at all. While many archaeologists agree that Indiana Jones does not represent a good archaeologist, Harrison Ford still serves as a General trustee of the AIA. Is is not completely unethical for the AIA to have Harrison Ford, the actor who portrays a character that represents a fantastical version of an archaeologists, a member of their organization. What does Harrison Ford actually know about archaeology anyway?
Archaeologists can't have it both ways. They can't complain about the false portrayal of their occupation and then openly accept it because it promotes the feild.


Moreover, many archaeological sites depend on the outlandish legends and folklore that surround the sites. For example, there is a new movie coming out called 2012. In the trailer, they show a Mayan site and the group suicide of modern-day Mayans because of the apocolypse. Not only is it racist, it is also spreading false history. The authors who have been profiting off of this false prophecy are charlatans. Archaeology is polluted with these people who profit off of falsifying history by claiming that the pyramids and stone henge were constructed by aliens. It is completely unethical to pass this information off as fact because there are always people out there who will believe it. For example, apparently NASA had to release a statement saying that the world will not end in 2012 because people were actually scared and concerned due to the release of the film.
http://www.scifisquad.com/2009/10/23/phew-nasa-says-the-world-is-not-ending-in-2012/

People thrive over urban legends and folklore, so much so that archaeological sites profit off it. Stone Henge is one example, but there are other less obvious ones. There are archaeological investigations on the disappearance of Amelia Earheart, whose mysterious disappearance is the subject of many myths. The site of Troy in Turkey gets most visitors due to the fact that it is rumoured to be the site of the great war as told by Homer in his epic poem The Iliad. Is it ethical to promote archaeology through myth and legend if it sparks an interest with the general public? Or should archaeology just be about facts?

Does the past limit modern development?

While in Istanbul, our tourguide informed us that while the city was attempting to build a subway system to connect both sides of the city thats seperated by water, the construction workers found archaeological remains which haulted any further construction until a full excavation had taken place.
I recently read an article of this happening in Rome. While building a transit line, construction workers uncovered Hadrian's ampitheatre. Construction on the transit line came to a hault in order to excavate the ampitheatre. While this archaeological discovery is astonishing, one must wonder if it is ethical to limit modern development to study the past?

The construction of new architecture and the implementation of technology, like subway systems, is essential for large cities. There are many large cities with rich archaeological history and it must be a huge burden on the local population to have to deal with numerous excavations getting in the way of construction. This is especially true for the construction of transit lines which are supposed to make peoples lives easier. Moreover, archaeological excavations can take years to complete, therefore who knows when construction can continue.

While it is important to protect and learn about the past, it is equally important to build infrastructure and sustain the populations that are currently living in said cities.

Lewis Chessmen: What do we really know?

I attended a public lecture on Tuesday held by the Medieval and Renaissance Studies program here at Brock. The subject was about the Lewis Chessmen, gaming pieces found on the coast of the Isle of Lewis in Scotland.

The archaeologist who was giving the lecture gave us some background on the chessmen themselves and then he raised a very important point that I have never truly considered before. What do we really know about the past? Of course, in archaeology there are some things that we claim to know for certain, but are there other explainations that can be considered?

For example, he talked about where they were found: Could they have been found elsewhere? Moreover, can we assume that all the chessmen were from the same time period just because they were all found together? He then went on to examine the pieces and show why some could have been much earlier than the others.

Because they were all found together, could they have been made by the same artist? He then showed us that the gaming pieces could be seperated into groups by examining the facial features of each of the chessmen.

Moreover, the site in which the gaming pieces were found has not been excavated. Why not? The area is covered by sand-dunes and is probably not ideal for excavation.

Another assumption about the chessmen is that they were left by a passing merchant, but considering where they were found, could this be true? Below is a picture of the west coast of the Isle of Lewis in Scotland. The lecturer said that it is more probable that they washed up on the shore, which I am inclined to believe as well.

The pieces themselves were found in the mid-18th century, therefore the exact provenance is questionable. Where they really found in Lewis? Or could they have been found in other sites that seem probable? Is it ethical to display the Lewis Chessmen in a museum due to the fact that their provenance is questionable?

While the chessmen were an interesting topic in their own right, I found it much more interesting that the lecturer was questioning what was believed to be true about the chessmen.

When I take a class on archaeology, I assume that all the facts and figures about a certain artifact is true. But what makes us so sure? We should always be questioning what we think we know about the past and not take what is written in our textbooks for granted. Where there is one theory, there are many others and each should be considered when studying artifacts.

After the lecture, I went on to read a bit more about the Lewis Chessmen and I came across a recurring theme that has come up frequently in our class. Where should the Lewis Chessmen call home? Should they be housed in the National Museum of Scotland, where only 11 of the 93 are on display? The other 82 are at the British Museum, which we know has come under much scrutiny and controversy regarding the artifacts that they "own." The Chessmen were found in Scotland, so should that be their permanent home? Or do they belong in Norway, their original home and where they were first crafted?

Choosing History

I recently read an article about Mada'in Saleh, a pre-Islamic archaeological site in modern day Saudi Arabia.

Not much attention has been paid to the architectural marvel due to the fact that Saudi Arabia hold hostile views towards other religions, for example little to no Christian, Jewish, or pagan relics are on display at museums.

(Mada'in Saleh:http://www.iqrasense.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/12/madain-saleh3.gif)

Now there is a more open minded view towards these pre-Islamic sites. However, archaeolgists are told not to speak about pre-Islam outside of literary texts.

Now, lets do a simple comparison. The Bamyan Bhuddas of Afghanistan were destroyed because of religious differences. However, Saudi Arabia has not gone to such extremes. For example, a pre-Islamic church was fenced off from the public. While it was closed off from the public, it was not destroyed and thus it has been preserved (although letf to the elements and not studied).

While the Taliban destroyed the bhuddas because they went against Islam, Saudi Arabia has a different insight to non-Islamic sites and artefacts.

From article: "They should be left in the ground," said Sheikh Mohammed al-Nujaimi, a well-known cleric, reflecting the views of many religious leaders. "Any ruins belonging to non-Muslims should not be touched. Leave them in place, the way they have been for thousands of years."

Is it ethical to ignore the past? Moreover, is it better to leave artefacts where they are, buried and unstudied?

The artefacts are being preserved and they are not being destroyed, so are we are losing is the chance to study them.

However, things in Saudi Arabia are beginning to change mostly to encourage tourism. So, sites like Mada'in Saleh are now open to the public even though it is a pre-Islamic site. These sites are being opened not because of religious tolerance but because of money. Therefore, is it ethical to ignore a religions policy on other religions artefacts and relics just to make money?

However, not all Saudi's think the same. Others recognize that anything on Saudi Arabia' soil is part of the countries history, regardless of religious background and thus they need to be protected.

From article: "Dhaifallah Altalhi, head of the commission's research center at the governmental Saudi Commission for Tourism and Antiquities, said there are 4,000 recorded sites of different periods and types, and most of the excavations are on pre-Islamic sites.

"We treat all our sites equally," said Altalhi. "This is part of the history and culture of the country and must be protected and developed." He said archaeologists are free to explore and discuss their findings in academic venues."

However, archaeologists are still being cautious about their findings, many of them only writing about pre-Islamic findings in scholarly publications only. So, is it ethical to hide the findings of a country's history from the residents of the said country?

Is it unethical for archaeologists to hide their findings from the public?

The article didn't specifiy, but are archaeologists prohibited from sharing their findings from the media outside of Saudi Arabia, or just in Saudi Arabia? If archaeologists are overall prohibited from sharing their findings from the international community, not only is that unethical but it is also a great injustice to the public who find history and antiquities interesting.

Source: http://www.nctimes.com/lifestyles/faith-and-values/article_0656208d-782d-5c18-89f0-a3eddbf2de9d.html

Imedla Marcos and her infamous shoes

A footwear museum in Marikina City in the Phillipines rescued the footwear collection of the infamous Imedla Marcos from the flood that have greatly affected the country in the past week or so.

At first I was almost offended. People are dying, and you care about that woman's shoes?! However, upon further investigation I learned that the collection was saved to save the jobs of the museums employees.

Moreover, do these shoes even deserve to be in a museum? Do some things deserve to be in museums and others discarded? Imedla Marcos was a stain on Filipino history and yet she is immoritialized in a museum.

On the other hand, Imedla Marcos is a famous part of Filipino cultural history. This collection at the footwear museum represents something much more than shoes.

From article: "The 200 pairs that had been on display there were among Imelda’s collection of 1,220 pairs—a subject of international amusement and ridicule. The shoes were uncovered in Malacañang after her husband, the dictator Ferdinand Marcos, was ousted in the 1986 People Power Revolution. "

Yes it ensures jobs when the Phillipines gets back on its feet. This article just puts into presepective what some cultures find important and worthy of being in a museum.

However, I believe this article is much more newsworthy: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1216643/Philippines-floods-Hero-teenager-saves-30-lives-swept-away.html

Source: http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/inquirerheadlines/nation/view/20091008-228953/Imeldific-shoes-saved-from-floods#

"Egypt Cuts Ties with the Lourve"

(Title from CBC article:http://http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2009/10/07/egypt-louvre.html)

Zahi Hawass, Egyptian Secretary General of the Supreme Council of Antiquities in Egypt and archaeologist has cut ties with the Lourve in Paris accusing them of having stolen artefacts. Not until these artefacts returned will any relationship between the Lourve and Egypt be reinstated.

Hawass wants any prominent artefacts returned to Egypt. A little elitist hmm? It makes me wonder how he feels about less prominent or unique artefacts that are of scholarly value but are less interesting? Is this about generating tourism to Egypt or is it about archaeology?

"The purchase of stolen steles is a sign that some museums are prepared to encourage the destruction and theft of Egyptian antiquities," he said. (From CBC article)

Now, Mr. Hawass, do you demand that ALL antiquities be brought back to Egypt? Your reputation is quite hostile towards archaeology. I believe that YOU believe that any antiquities taken out of Egypt were stolen, even if they were excavated legally due to the fact that you lobby against archaeologists publishing their findings.

Who knows, maybe the artefacts at the Lourve were stolen and if that is the case they should indeed be returned. I mean, Shelby White had to return her artefacts, so therefore there should no exception. However, Hawass seems to be denying any negotiations by simply going to extremes. The Lourve said they were open to negotiations, so why are you being so stubborn Mr. Hawass?

What ever happened to negotiations? Well, Perhaps I'm being too harsh on Hawass. Perhaps he has been trying to cooperate with the Lourve for quite some time, but the Lourves reaction to Hawass seems to prove otherwise.

Whats next, severing ties with every other museum in the world? I would hate to see the disappearance of the Egyptian exhibit at the ROM because it is one of them best exhibits I have ever seen. How do you expect the world to have an appreciation of artefacts and your history if you demand that they all be given back?

Looting the Past

Is looting sites wrong? If so, for whom? Does it hinder gaining knowledge of the past?

It is my opinion that looting is wrong. It is of course stealing. But how can you steal when you don't know who the objects belong to? Do they belong to the state? Do they belong to community? Do they belong to the person who owns that particular piece of land? Or do they belong to absolutly no one?

One of the greatest examples is the Maya people who still live in rural regions of Mexico. They are the descendents of the great Mayan Empire of the Mesoamerican Classical period, however they are not the "owners" of their own past. Archaeologists study the temples and take artefacts to museums, and sites are regulated by tourist boards of Mexico.

Try explaining to a descendent of the Maya that cultural heritage belongs to everyone. I don't think it will go over very well, especially when they are trying to own the very history that was raped and torn away from them during conquest and colonisation. If a Maya uncovers an artefact, it is my opinion that they can do what they want with it. If they want to keep it, fine. If they want to sell it to a museum or a collector, fine. If they want to keep it in the ground, fine. While I am very interested in Central and South American history, I do not have any claim to any indigenous artefacts. Have they not put up with enough over the centuries? And even now, they have to deal with tourisms and UNESCO telling them what they can and cannot do with their own history.

Looting can offer poor communities with a chance for monetary gain, however not being able to study the artefacts, these communities lose a sense of their past; the past of their ancestors.

However, without some cases of looting, authorities and archaeologists wouldn't be alerted to sites they would have otherwise not known about.

Indigenous peoples of the New World, including Australia, New Zealand, North America and South America do not believe that their past should be studied. Many indigenous groups feel that burial sites are still scared ground and their religious beliefs trump any archaeological investigations.

The Salt Lake Tribune recently posted an article about a man from Colorado pleading not guilty to smuggling illegal artefacts from state to state. Now, the article is very small and I wish more attention was paid to the defendents reasoning for having the artefacts in the first place. Depending on where the artefacts came from, the indigenous group is probably still a tribe and their invidual culture is still practiced. These artefacts were not only stolen from academics, archaeologists and historians but also from specific tribes who are desperately trying to cling onto their past.
http://www.sltrib.com/news/ci_13455117#



---

UNESCO tries to prohibit the purchase of illicitly and illegally but with all do respect, the UN can barely do anything. Let me take to extremes: they couldn't even prevent the gruesome genocide in Rwanda. Maybe governments should create their own laws, work with the people in the region positively. Guarantee compensation for artefacts found their provienance recorded.