Greetings,
I think we might want to draw a distinction between who owns the 'past' and
who owns the 'archaeological record'. My understanding of the SAA
guidelines is that they refer to the 'record' rather than the past (as it
should be). The past is far more diverse and contested, and 'owning it' is
a perhaps more a (pernicious) wish than a reality.
As far as owning the record goes, Neal Ferris of the Ontario Ministry of
Culture (Canada) has looked into the legal side of this question for the
province. His conclusion (offered at the Chacmool conference last month) is
that literally the government 'owns' the archaeological record, but holds it
in trust for the peoples of Canada. On the books, Aboriginal people ceded
the archaeological record through various land treaties that were signed.
Archaeologists partake in the 'management' of this 'resource' through a
licensing system that regulates their 'exploitation' of the archaeological
'record' [to use scare-quotes and resource metaphors to their fullest
potential]. And Aboriginal people, while recognized as having a vested
interest in the archaeological record, only gain legal standing in reference
to burials which fall under the provisions of the Cemeteries Act. So in
effect, archaeologists and Aboriginal people have been preempted by the
government, and both 'stewardship' and 'ownership' is legislatively out of
either of our hands.
Of course, in practice, CONTROL over the record (and over the past) is a
completely different matter, and exercising its problems requires more than
a change in metaphor.
Jay
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|