A little *light* discussion, well it'll be illuminating for me!!
Since it's been a bit quiet lately I'd be interested to hear people's
comments on why we deem ourselves, as archaeologists, *guardians of the
past*. That is how archaeoligists are seen as a large amount of the public
but how true is it? As archaeologists we a explicit in the destruction,
preservation and construction of the past, yet sometimes that past can be
very *new*. who sets the agenda and decides what is allowed to be saved
and what destroyed? This cuts across gender archaeology as well; can men
decide on women's archaeology and visa versa? Why do so many people feel
the need to preserve the recent past or rather their recent past.?
Do we so fear modernity that we would prefer to cherish the past and in
many cases a politically and or economicaly constructed past? A past that
might has very little to do with ourselves.
Or is it that we are beginning to realise, about time, the transitory
nature of the *human condition* and therefore we preserve what we can
whilst it is still important to us? The next generation might not have
such a cosy view of things.
Is the protection and production of the past a modern phenomena and is it
something based in western capitailist ideology?
Or what??
Or don't we care?
Someone out there must have an opinion on some of this or is the list so
quite because we're in complete agreement with each other?? Now that would
be a first!!
Helen
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|