>. The only solution I can foresee is to focus on Internationalism and
concentrate on ALL folks >working for a common cause. The goodies in the
British Museum and in the Pergamon Museum >should be returned to their
rightful owners. I'd rather view the Elgin Marbles in Greece, anyhow. >And
Fahri, you can always find a Turkish site to excavate. Just change your
timeline ;-).
>Cheers, Gerry
I recently attended a seminar given by Ezra Zubrow, in which he discussed
issues of ethnicity and ownership of the archaeological past. He argued that
we could divide current approaches to the issue into 4 broad categories -
Private ownership, Group (ethnic, etc) ownership, National/State ownership,
and International ownership. Many countries adopt policies based on these
categories, or some combination thereof. Many archaeologists present at the
talk professed a preference for International ownership of the past - the
argument being that the arch record belongs to All Humanity, an idea that
would probably horrify many "ethnic groups" and indigenous peoples. To me,
it seems a rather convenient position to take bearing in mind that
archaeologists frequently like to excavate in countries other than those
they live in - it sets the archaeological community up as a kind of
International Past Expert Squad. But on the other hand this could be a
conflation of access with ownership - theres no reason archaeologists should
actually claim ownership of what they excavate. However, can we really push
the idea that someone from Stoke-on-Trent has as much right to the rock art
in the Blue Mountains as the local Aboriginals, or that Michelangelo's David
should be deposited in the highlands of PNG because they havent had their
fair share yet, in todays world?
These sort of arguments can go on for ever, but while listening to Ezra
Zubrows talk, it occured to me that perhaps part of the problem is buying
into the idea of Ownership in the first place. Is "ownership" really a very
good metaphor? Is talk of 'ownership' tantamount to thinking of the past as
a commodity? Can the past really be said to be able to be 'owned'? Or is the
past as an idea simply too slippery? What I would like to ask list members
is whether they can think of a better metaphor or approach - a position
outside the spectrum of Ownership? Is there a position archaeologists can
take that doesnt buy into this rhetoric?
cheers
Tim
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|