Whose Culture? A Book Review

Who owns culture? But more importantly, who decides the answer to that question? James Cuno investigates this question in his compilation of essays by various scholars in Whose Culture? His book further investigates the controversial issue of looting and the significance and importance of artifacts without context or provenance.

In his introduction, Cuno tackles various problems existing in the sphere of cultural heritage. How do we decide whats important? Who decides whats important? And who does it belong to?
I thought it was incredibly interesting how Cuno offers a completely different point of view from what we have been looking at all semester. It was refreshing to see that Cuno understood the importance of artefacts without context or provenance. While he understands how context is important in archaeology, he chooses to focus on how museums should handle such objects. In his introduction, Cuno states that, "This book considers the question of why museums, especially art museums should acquire antiquities, even unexcavated antiquities with incomplete provenance." While Cuno understands and supports the legalities and ethics concerning objects, he argues that museums have an obligation to the public to house and preserve artefacts. He then goes on to list instances in which artefacts without context have proven to be beneficial to the academic sphere. Most notably, he talks about the Rosetta Stone, which was found out of context, excavated without archaeological practices or regulations, let helped decipher an entire language. Of course this object is important, and thats exactly the point Cuno is trying to make. Artefacts without context can be beneficial to archaeology, history, and cultural heritage.

Cunos book is broken up into three parts, all consisting of essays by various scholars.

Part One deals with the value of museums. The main focus here is in encyclopedic museums, such as the British Museum, that display a plethora of different artefacts from around the world. Many of the objects that are at the British Museum were acquired prior to the formation of UNESCO and were obtained during the Enlightenment in which there was a resurgence of Classical interests. The issue here is that there is now 191 signatories of UNESCO, and countries like Greece, Egypt, Iran and the like are fighting for their cultural heritage to be returned. Here lies the question: Who owns cultural heritage? Well after readings the essays Cuno had chosen for this part, many interesting and noteworthy conclusions can be made. First of all (I had not even considered this before), cultural property belongs to the imperialists, the great nations, the rich. In the age of the Enlightenment, it was easy for countries like Britian to take artefacts from poorer and occupied countries like Greece and India. The idea that culture belongs to the powerful is a new one to me but it makes a lot of sense. Moreover, there seems to be an awareness that richer nations are more able to take care of and preserve artefacts making it seem justified to rip nationalist symbols for other nations.

Part Two consists of the value of the antiquities themselves. I will not delve very far into this section of the book due to the fact that I talked about it indepth at the beginning of this review. However, I will say that I found Sir John Boardman's essay quite endearing. I agreed with him wholeheartedly in the fact that museums had an obligation to the public to acquire artefacts regardless if they have no context because there is a "value of museums as repositories for the preservation and presentation of antiquities and considers the benefits to knowledge of acquiring and studying undocumented antiquities."

Part Three is about "Museums, Antiquities, and Cultural Property." Again, here we are looking at the question: Who owns cultural heritage? What can be read in the essays in this chapter can be related to everything we have spoken about all semester. On one hand, museums are centers of knowledge and should serve to teach us about our past. It would be a great injustice if all artifacts were to go back to their home countries because it would make it increasingly difficult for people to view and learn about the treasures of the past. On the other hand, antiquities can be important symbols in modern day politics and culture and can serve as nationalistic tools. For example, Michael F. Brown talks about indigenous societies and their attempt to reclaim and preserve lost heritage and culture. The next essay by Derek Gillman talks about artefacts that have served as important examples throughout the course, such as the Bamiyan Buddhas and the Elgin Marbles. Here we see a juxtaposition of one country wanted to destroy a part of their history in the name of nationalism and another country lobbying for the repatriation of artefacts to fuel nationalism. In this book, many political ideas regarding nationalism were brought up that I had never thought of before. Before reading this book, I had never fulling considered the different spheres of nationalism. Moreover, I had never even considered that cultural heritage is mostly owned by the rich, especially when we look at encyclopedic museums like the British Museum and the Louvre, as well as private collectors. Cultural heritage can be owned at any price. Even though many nations are lobbying for the return of lost cultural property, places like the British Museum refuse to repatriate any objects - and they really don't have to. While there are many protests and public opinion regarding the manner, the Elgin Marbles for example were obtained prior to the 1970 UNESCO convention and thus encyclopedic museums have a right to ownership for many of the objects that they display.

In conclusion, I found Cuno's book very refreshing in that it raised many questions that I had never before considered even though it seemed like the perfect culmination for all that we had studied all semester. Call me a bit naive, but I had never truly realized the gravity of Western ownership on artefacts. I don't have any problems with this book, I think it offered many different insights into an interesting ethical dilemma. I would not say that Cuno failed in providing his audience with opposing positions because he stated in his Introduction that that was not the intent of the book. The book was to study one side and one side only and I think it did a great job of doing so. Anyone interested in archaeological ethics can pick up almost any book and read about the opposing view and that's exactly why Cunos book is so important because its the one offering the rare insight into an opposing opinion. What is unsettling though is the realization that no solution will be met, at least not any time soon, by Cuno himself. I guess that's what I've learned most from Archaeological Ethics: there are many theorists, many ideas, many dilemmas, and many solutions, but absolutely no answers.

No Context, No Provenance: A-OK!

This article is very interesting. China is offerring rewards for artifacts and relics that were taken out of the country during its "century of shame." I find it interesting because here we see a government offering money for artifacts that may or may not have any known context or provenance. One of the questions that has come up over the past semester has been: are looted artifacts or collected artifacts, especially those with unknown context or provenance, just as important as excavated ones? Do they have any significance?


"While China will not concede any of its original claims of rightful ownership, Chan said that China may be willing to provide “fair and reasonable” compensation to the “benevolent holders” of its looted artifacts, in accordance with international treaties and conventions."

I find this quote to be very interesting in that China is offering money, which could be interpreted as China understanding that they do not actually own the artifacts. For example, Greece will never ask the British Museum for a loan on the Elgin Marbles due to the fact that Greece would then be recognizing the British Museums ownership of the artifacts.

"Now, as China’s economic might grows, greater efforts are being made to restore its lost cultural heritage."

So, we can assume that the context of the artifact is not important here. Can one have any cultural heritage without actually knowing the history of the object? I say yes. This is due to the fact that artifacts can mean more than a piece of history. They are symbols of patriotism. Just witnessing a piece of art can invoke a lot more pride than the actually history of it. This isn't always the case, but its true.

"Last month, the director of Beijing’s Summer Palace said China would send a team of experts to museums around the world in an attempt to create a complete catalog works looted from the Summer Palace when it was ravaged and burned by British and French forces in 1860"

Here we can also see that the artifacts can also symbolize independence. They had lost artifacts from invading foreign forces and recovering these lost objects can help in rebuilding pride and establishing independence.

Case Study

This entry is in reference to the case study that we did in class.


Our case study was about a man named Dr Charles who had been working in west Africa for years. He was an archaeology who was also very involved the community. The community began to depend on him for employment, funds, and education. Moreover, they wished for his help in building up tourism. Unfortunately, Dr Charles wanted to move onto different sites around the world in order to compare his findings from the site in west Africa. Also, political tension had been developing and poor infrastructure, like roads, was compromising his research.

I suppose the ethical question here is what is an appropriate role for an archaeologist to play in the community?
If an archaeologist chooses to include the community in his research, how much should the community be involved? What are the obligations of the archaeologist towards the community and vice versa? Should the community depend on the archaeologist the way they have depended on Dr Charles?

Dr Charles had been working in west Africa for years, thus he may have also become a part of the community. He is a member who is providing education of this particular towns cultural heritage. His research as provided employment for a (I'm assuming) poor region. Evidence of a poor economic situation is shown in the fact that this town has poor roads. And because Dr Charles has played such a significant role in helping this community learn about their past, does he have an obligation to not only continue teaching but also help in creating a tourist spot?

Creating a tourist spot does not require a site. It also requires good infrastructure, which this town does not have. Moreover, if Dr Charles were to stay and help this community, he would have to step outside of his role as an archaeologist.

The case study does provide a question: How does one leave the community? Dr Charles may have a close and personal connection with this town and its people. He wants to move on to study comparable sites, but he is torn. If he stays, he can help build the community, however if he leaves he is jeopardizing knowledge and even jeopardizing any further knowledge of this west African site. In order for him to fully understand his research in this region, he must travel outwards to compare and contrast his findings. But how does he do this knowing that this community relies so heavily upon him for employment and education? Or does Dr Charles' academic interests trump the needs and wants of the community that allowed him to work there for several years?

I would have to say, even know this is not ideal, that Dr Charles should either stay in the community and help it grow or allow grad students to work there in order to keep employment and education alive within the community. I only say this because Dr Charles made the choice to not only include the community but to also be a part of it.

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

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#