Jay Cunningham wrote:
> 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.
>
Greetings Jay,I guess I was referring to the archaeologists as
caregivers to the past; as folks who do the history and then do the
debate.
> 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.
Gerry here: So in Canada, the government owns the past? This is quite
tricky when a country politicizes what the history is. From what I
understand, this is what Saddam Hussein has done to the archaeological
record in Iraq. And from an archaeological point of view, this proves
to be fatal whether or not the record is held in trust for the people.
> On the books, Aboriginal people ceded
> the archaeological record through various land treaties that were
> signed.
Gerry here: Yes, but the poor Aboriginal folks had no idea what was
going on!
> 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.
>
Gerry here: And it becomes very alarming when ownership and stewardship
falls to politics. And from my limited perspective, I think this turn
of events has occurred without any deep thinking.
> 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.
>
Gerry here: Are you implying that government control is NOT the last
word? I certainly hope so.
Gerry
>
>
> ______________________________________________________
> Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|