Famous Bodies

Are you curious about the about picture? Trying to figure out what exactly you're looking at? Well, it's Galileo's finger. That's right. His FINGER.

Apparently, Galileo's body parts became collectors items 95 years after his death when the Catholic church moved his body to consecrated ground. Other body parts include vertebrae. Other pieces of Galileo exist, but Florence's History of Science Museum has only been able to conserve these two parts. The rest has been lost to collectors.

We talk about collecting artifacts but we rarely talk about whether or not it is ethical to collect bodies and even put them on display for the public. For example, you can meet Lenin face to face with Lenin in Moscow even though he has been dead since the 1920s. Moreover, these little pieces of Galileo will be put on display for the public.

What is it with this fascination to preserve and view the famous as if they are relics? Is it really necessary to view these bodies? What can we learn from Galileo's fingers? Or do museums display the bodies of the famously deceased in order to feed upon the general publics morbid fascinations?

Is it ethical to display bodies? I can understand that these famous people may be heroes, and I can understand cemetery pilgrimages, but call me old fashioned but I really wouldn't want to view a decomposed corpse. And is this in the name of cultural heritage? Does it contribute to any historical or archaeological advancements? Or is this a museums way of being a "Ripley's Believe it or not" without losing any credibility?

And if we are supposed to be discouraging looting? These body parts of Galileo were obviously looted and made their way through collectors. Does putting body parts on display at museums encourage looting of graves, especially of those who are famous?

Archaeology and Criminology

Until I read this article, I had never considered what an Archaeologists role would be in the criminology sphere. This entry may not deal specifically with ethics, but it does raise some very valuable questions and shed some light on the different roles of archaeologists throughout the world.

I suppose that we all assume that archaeologists are academics who lecture, go on digs and publish their findings to the world. However, in this particular case, archaeologists can help criminologists uncover the truth.

The story goes: A real estate agent in Lousiana uncovers about 100 bones in the basement of a house. Officials believe that they are from the 19th century. Moreover, officials say that they may even be Native American bones, which they then will fall under NAGPRA.

"Before it can be determined if the bones are native, they will be sent for analysis. Moreover, this analysis will determine if a crime has occured.
If the remains are American Indian, then the “appropriate” tribes will be consulted, he said. If the bones turn out to belong to another ethnic group, different groups may be notified."

We have spoken about NAGRA before, but not in terms of how it would be implemented in terms of crime. Moreover, it seems that NAGPRA would not be in effect if a crime had occured. So therefore, crime takes precedence over NAGPRA, no matter how old the remains are.

"If there is no crime, and the bones are more than 50 years old, they then fall under the responsibility of the state’s Division of Archaeology."

The site is an archaeological site, no doubt. Officials found arrowheads during investigation. Therefore, I wonder how the archaeologists will work with the criminalists and vice versa if it is true that a crime had taken place. Moreover, I wonder how the rules of NAGRA would apply.

After reading the article and looking more in depth into this situation, I think the remains preceded the house, therefore they are probably not the result of a crime but rather proper burial. Now, my question is: can native tribes, using NAGPRA, make any claims to the home? What will become of the home? Will there be a full excavation? Or will the bones be left as is?

UNESCO is Powerless

In a quote taken from an article on UNESCO, Francesco Bandarin, director of UNESCO's World Heritage Centre, admitted that UNESCO only had moral power and could not place restrictions upon countries.
It's interesting that we are studying UNESCO so in-depth, when they really have no power. Moreover, the article raised an important fact: the sites listed on UNESCO only account for a small fraction of sites in the world that require protection. The problems lies in the fact that countries place certain sites up for nomination. Therefore, countries can pick and choose which sites are important to cultural heritage. How is this fair to the world, if heritage belongs to us all? Countries are picking and choosing what deserves to be preserved and what should be left to detriorate. I believe that countries purposely pick and choose what will become a UNESCO site in order to generate money. If a site is listed on the UNESCO World heritage list, the more likely tourists will visit the site and the surrounding area.

The site of Iwami Ginzan is a specific example of a country attempting to utilize UNESCO to generate money. While the site had no "outstanding universal value" it still won the bid to become a World Heritage Site.

From article: As one conservationist responsible for a British World Heritage site, who preferred not to be named, put it: "A site that will not be of interest to paying visitors isn't going to be a priority. Unesco wants people to go there. They call it public education. We call it tourism."

The problem still remains that UNESCO has no political power over sites. If a country chooses to take control over a site, then UNESCO will put in "In Danger" yet they cannot actually do anything to stop destruction other than lobbying for protection. One could argue that promoting awareness can be just as beneficial to the preservation of sites, however UNESCO has only a small fraction of sites that need to be protected on their list. If cultural heritage needs to be protected, then why be so stingy on which sites are accepted?

Only one site has even been delisted from UNESCO when Oman descided to deplete the The Arabian Oryx Sanctuary by 90%. Instead of actually placing sanctions on Oman, UNESCO simply delisted it. Now, because of UNESCO not coperating with Oman to ENSURE a solution be made, the population of the Onyx has gone from 450 to only 4 mating pairs left. Is this at all acceptable?

UNESCO is of course aware of the issue, but the absolutly need to gain some form of autonomy over the sites that they sign to the list, otherwise the sites are only protected on paper and countries can still do what they please with them.

Archaeology, Museums, Tourism and the Environment

In this weeks class, we discussed how archaeology was a destructive science. Now that we are living in the green age, we are supposed to be more consciously aware of how our actions affect the environment. While we may be looking at UNESCO in relation to archaeological sites, UNESCO also serves to protect environmental sites like the coral reef in Australia.

Because archaeology, whether on land or underwater, is so destructive to the site, the artifacts, and even the environmental habitat, do archaeologists have an obligation to help "fix" the environment after excavation?

While excavating, do they have an obligation to be aware of the natural habitat around them? If it came between a great archaeological find and the protection of the habitat of a species, what would be the final choice?

Moreover, the tourism that is the by-product of archaeology and museums can also have a huge affect on the environment.

In Mexico, an underwater museum is being created in order to fix the damage done by tourists. On the 19th of November, sculptures will be submerged in the water in hopes of attracting algae.

"According to the park's director Jaime Gonzalez, one of the aims is to reduce the pressure on the natural habitat in other areas of the park by luring tourists away from existing coral reef, which has suffered damage from hurricanes and human activity."

The program which is funded by the Mexican government understands what a detrimental effect tourism has on the environment. However, this underwater museum is much different from others around the world. There has been support for an underwater museum in Alexandria which would showcase treasures of Cleopatra. This type of museum is much different than the one in Mexico in that it could prove to be detrimental to the ecosystems living under that water. While the museum in Mexico is trying to use art to attract tourists away from other ecosystems, like the coral reefs, an underwater museum in Alexandria would purposely attract hundreds to thousands of tourists to a single ecosystem which will then be gravely threatened.

Archaeology, museums, and tourism can work with the environment. Tourists should realize that it is their obligation to respect the environment and think about how their vacations can destroy certain habitats. Moreover, archaeologists are obligated to ensure that the environment is not harmed because our future is just as important as our past.

Coins

Should there be restrictions on the collection of coins? AIA representative Sebastian Heath believes that import restrictions should be placed on coins. This article brought up some very valid questions: http://www.sys-con.com/node/1193005

Coins were always intended to be mobile. They were made to move from place to place and thus it is probably not unethical for collectors of today to acquire such antiquities.

Archaeologists cannot argue any loss of context or provenance. Coins were meant to move and have distinctive qualities which would help determine where they came from, much like money today. Even though most of Europe is under the EURO and money can move freely between borders, each country has put their own spin on the EURO, putting national symbols on coins and bills.

I suppose one could also argue that if ancient coins were looted from a site, it could diminish any knowledge we could gain about the economy of the site, including trade, war, and the like.

There are many websites on the Internet that sell ancient coins. While I do not believe it is wrong to collect coins, the problem is that coins can tell us SO MUCH about the past. Besides, coins are protected under UNESCO.


(i) property relating to history, including the history of science and technology and military and social history, to the life of national leaders, thinkers, scientists and artist and to events of national importance;

(ii)antiquities more than one hundred years old, such as inscriptions, coins and engraved seals;

However, the Ancient Coin Collector's Guild believe that by collecting coins, they are preserving and educating the public. They believe in the study of coins as well. They are lobbying to keep their right to collect. They do not believe in looting and believe in acquiring only legally obtained coins. So they are they in the wrong if they are following the rules and being diligent about collecting? Archaeologists seem to think so.

The fact of the matter remains that collectors fuel interest in the past. Many of them put their collections up for public display and aid in the study and research of antiquity. However, collecting fuels looting. While most collectors may be ethical when it comes to collecting, there still exists a handful of collectors that would buy from anyone and anywhere, uninterested if the object was obtained legally.

While archaeologist's may be fighting with the collectors, the ACCG has a code of ethics that makes the fighting seem irrelevant and ethical collectors should not be penalised.

ACCG Board Code of Ethics

1. Coin Collectors and Sellers will not knowingly purchase coins illegally removed from scheduled archaeological sites or stolen from museum or personal collections, and will comply with all cultural property laws of their own country.

2. Coin Collectors and Sellers will protect, preserve and share knowledge about coins in their collections.

3. Coin Sellers will not knowingly sell modern forgeries of ancient coins, and all ancient counterfeits or Renaissance type copies will be clearly identified as such.

4. Coin Sellers will disclose all known defects, including tooling, re-engraving or reconstruction of coins they sell.

5. Coin Sellers will not misrepresent the value of coins they buy or sell.

The New York Times had an interesting article called "When Ancient Artifacts become Political Pawns." The article describes various instances in which several countries have used artifacts to promote nationalism and their political agenda.

One of the most interesting cases that author, Michael Kimmelmen, brings up is that of Farouk Hosny who lost a bid to become director general of UNESCO and blamed it on a Jewish conspiracy. Not only that, but when Hosny was asked about Israeli books in the Alexandria museum, he said "Let’s burn these books. If there are any, I will burn them myself before you."

It is really shocking that that Hosny thought he would win his bid for UNESCO when he so publically promotes nationalism and the destruction of foreign manuscripts and artifacts.

Another case that raised questions for me is the Nefertitti bust. Hawass, who was discussed in the last post, wants to have the bust returned and if the bust can be proven that it wasn't stolen from Egypt a century ago, then Hawass will allow Berlin to keep the famous artifact.
I can't help but wonder how Hawass feels about the massive trade of artifacts that took place prior to the 20th century. Does he believe that ALL artifacts belonging to a different nation belong solely in that nation? Or does he believe that only artifacts that will encourage tourism and will generate money are important?

Beyonce versus Archaeology

Zahi Hawass has a lot to say. Usually he is criticizing museums across the world of displaying looted items from Egypt and demanding their return, and now he is criticizing pop-singer Beyonce.

In an a recent article, Hawass insulted Beyonce, calling her "stupid" because she was ignorant of Egypt's history. Hawass recognizes Beyonce and a public figure and because she is so well known, Hawass believes she has an obligation to promote the country that she is visiting.

Beyonce was photographed being guided around historical monuments, but Hawass believes that Beyonce is ignorant of all that is Egyptian and that she makes no effort to understand.

The question raised here is: Do celebrities have any obligation to history? Harrison Ford, for example, is a member of AIA and is recognized for his "promotion" of archaeology. Do other celebrities have an obligation to promote other countries and their history?

Celebrities like Beyonce are role-models and their interest in the past can lead to growth in appreciation for archaeology. However, I do not believe that celebrities have an obligation to promote archaeology. Just because Beyonce is visiting a certain country does not mean she needs to know the advanced history of Egypt. Millions of tourists visit Egypt each year, many with little to no knowledge of the pyramids or other monuments.

Celebrities are not archaeologists or historians nor do they claim to be.

It seems to me that Beyonce was truly trying to understand the culture and embrace is and Hawass was just complaining...again.

Not all archaeologists in Egypt feel the same as Hawass, but they do understand his power which is evidenced in the following quote from the article:

“We are talking about an Egyptian government official and he goes as says something like this? Come on, this is very rude and totally undiplomatic,” said another archaeologist, both of whom asked not to be named as their current work is funded by the council headed by Hawass.

Hawass has been creating a huge stir in the world of archaeology as of late and his comments towards Beyonce is surely going to get publicity. So, I must wonder, was this just a publicity stunt?

Link to article:http://bikyamasr.com/?p=5683

Last class we spoke about NAGPRA and one of the main issues that came up was whether or not it was ethical to dig up a body for archaeological research.

One of the presenters kept mentioning that these bodies were "hundreds of years old" and thus void of any connections with modern ancestors of tribes. When I think of "hundreds of years ago" I either think of colonialism onwards. If this is the case, I have to believe that the study of native remains is racist. My reasoning is, if they are digging up native graves, why are they not also digging up the colonizers? Are they digging up the first Christian settlers in the New World?

In a small town in Quebec, where my grandfather was born, there are 2 cemeteries in which some graves are from the late 18th century. Now of course, no one would ever dream of digging up these graves but for a moment I would like to play devil's advocate. Could we not study the bones of these settlers? The clothing that they were wearing? The items they may have been buried with? Why is it that mainstream society feels that it is okay to dig up some graves and not others?

I would also like to add that in this small town where my grandfather is from, called Chapeau, there is a small native cemetery. It has been fenced to keep people out, and there is a sign that gives a brief history of the people and asks for respect and remembrance.

In Canada and the USA, there exists a concept of freedom of religion, which is why it is unethical to dig up graves of the natives. It goes against their religious beliefs. Would society allow such a thing to happen in a privately owned or municipally run cemetery like Victoria Lawn in St Catharines? I think not.

Native Americans and other minorities that have been put on display in museums is a mere freakshow. It seems to me to be racial discrimination and to say that one is "studying" these people as if they are sub-species disgusts me. These are people who lived, had families, had loved ones, and they were HUMAN.

Maybe I am in the minority in this mindset. Maybe I am one of the few who enjoys seeing the sarcophagus only and not the mummy.

I am not ignorant in the fact that studying the dead can bring valuable answers to the academic world. I am merely saying that until archaeological excavations, like the ones being enforced on the natives becomes EQUAL across the boards, it should not take place.

And for those native tribes who have had to give up their material culture and heritage in order to sustain themselves because they have little to no money, I blame the governments who have abandoned them and the buyers and collectors who have taken advantage of their situation.

ETA: NAGRA seems to me to be an organization that is concerned with not hindering archaeological study, but protecting culture. While students of archaeology may think that archaeology is the only legitimate way of learning about past culture, NAGRA proves that it isn't. Native Americans are protecting the culture that has been repeatedly ripped away from them since colonization. It is about protecting their past and gaining autonomy over the objects and people that are lost to them.

Sites for Sale

We have often spoken in class about antiquities that have been bought and sold, but rarely have we spoken about actual sites that have been put on the market.

A recent article from BBC news talks about a site in Cissbury Ring in West Sussex. It is here where a site is being put on the market because the previous owner (who wanted the site to remain public) had passed away. The site was so be sold as agricultural land. 

This resulted in public outcry and protest which resulted in the real-estate agency deciding to review the decision to sell.

The land itself is not the archaeology site, but the Iron Age fort near by is. According to the 400 people who gathered to protest the sale of the land feel as though the land has as much archaeological significance as the fort and is also a huge part of their heritage.

This isn't the first time I have wondered about the ethics of historical sites being put up for sale. More often than not, homes with rich history are sold off to the highest bidder. Sometimes historical homes are made into libraries or schools. Is this ethical? Or should all historical sites become museums and open to the public? How does one decide what is important to the public and what can be sold privately? In the case of Cissbury Ring, locals came out to protest, but how rarely to local citizens fight for their local heritage?

I will end this entry with an interesting website I found while roaming around the internet. It is apparently a 13th century Templar castle for sale in Italy. Is it ethical to sell such a historic site? Or is it merely just a house for sale to anyone willing to buy?

http://www.castles-for-sale.com/sale/Perugia/index.htm

BBC article: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/sussex/8360572.stm

"Iran Says U.K. to Loan 2,500-Year-Old Cylinder for Three Months"

Iran will be getting its Cyrus Cylinder back...for 3 months. Although the British Museum will not confirm the reports, it is said that the artifact will go on loan as long as there is no political conflict going on in Iran that may jeopardize the cylinder.

I thought this was very interesting because when we were discussing the Elgin Marbles earlier in the semester, someone asked why couldn't the British Museum just loan the marbles to Greece. Well, it the Greeks were to ask for a loan, they would be agreeing that the British Museum owned the artifacts. Therefore, it seems that Iran is relinquishing any ownership of the Cyrus Cylinder by asking for a loan. I can only guess that this is because Iranians really want to see this piece of history that they are willing to sacrifice ownership just to have it for a short period of time.

The Berlin Wall

It has been 20 years since the fall of the Berlin Wall and I have to stop and wonder if tearing it down was archaeologically unethical. Of course, the destruction of the wall, which was built in 1961 in order to seperate East Germany (under Soviet control) from the democratic West Germany, symbolized freedom, the end of communism, and the end of the Cold War. While the Berlin Wall was a barrier and a symbol of war and seperation, it was and is a great monument in history.

In last weeks lecture, we wondered if it was ethical to turn concentration camps of the Second World War into museums. Many believed that it was ethical because even though they brought back sad memories, they served as a learning tool and also served as a type of memorial for those who died. Now, I have to wonder the same thing about the Berlin Wall. Yes, it had many negative connotations and symbolized war, but nonetheless is it a part of history, not only German history but world history. The destruction of the Berlin Wall was the destruction of cultural heritage and now all we are left with are small pieces of the wall that are displayed around Berlin as if they are modern works of art.

Yes, pieces of the Berlin Wall remain, but they have been taken totally out of context. Moreover, people can go online and buy pieces of the Berlin Wall. Now, apparently it is unethical to do this with Classical artifacts that have no provinance, but it is perfectly ethical to sell modern history?

http://www.berlin-wall.net/orderform.htm

Should these pieces not be in a museum? Or even multiple museums around the world?

We cannot pick and choose our history, we must accept it for what it was and learn from it. Trying to erase certain monuments does not change what had happened and future generations are put at a great disadvantage when it comes to learning about history.

It has been 20 years since the Berlin Wall was torn down, and what did we learn? I feel as if people have forgotten what it truly stood for. According to one article, a replica of the wall was built in France....out of chocolate. http://www.google.com/hostednews/canadianpress/article/ALeqM5iIUP6m4CgYE1LK3wpogON2eQZkow