 |
 |
Hi Hannah, I'm not sure if I've correctly understood your question but, I have never thought in Australia as "outside the first world". Of course you are a very distant country , but we have closer countries that we (sadly) can't consider as part of the "first world". Javier (Spain) > ** Original Subject: RE: WAC 2003 > ** Original Sender: Hannah Forsyth <[log in to unmask]> > ** Original Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2001 12:24:34 +0100 (MET) > ** Original Message follows... > > I find it interesting that in australia we are considered to be 'outside the > first world'. Certainly not insulted or anything, but we don't think of > ourselves that way. I would actually like to hear how > outside-the-australian-world-ers think of us... > > -----Original Message-----From: Arch-theory list is for international discussions, reviews, and > exchanges o [mailto:[log in to unmask]]On Behalf Of Julian > Thomas > Sent: Saturday, 17 February 2001 3:18 AM > To: [log in to unmask] > Subject: Re: WAC 2003 > > > on 16/2/01 4:02 pm, Dr John Carman at [log in to unmask] wrote: > > > Dear Julian > > Many thanks for your reply and of course I too want to see WAC continuing > to > > foster global communication among the archaeological community. > > I am not at all sure that creating 'the conditions under which > participants > > from all over the world can attend WAC in Washington' is the same, > however, > > as creating a sense of global community among archaeolgists and others > > concerned with the remains of the past, which it seems to me has been a > > hallmark of WAC so far. Of course, WAC was founded in Southampton, as a > > result of a split among the organisers of the planned IUPPS conference > over > > South African attendance. It was therefore very appropriate for WAC to go > to > > South Africa last time, to welcome the new post-apartheit South Africa > back > > into the full community of nations and international scholarship. > > There remain, however, parts of the world where international conferences > of > > the range and size of WAC do not go and where WAC itself could go but has > > not yet been: e.g. Western Asia, East Asia, North Africa, Australsia, and > > Eastern Europe (apologies if I have missed any regions out). By contrast, > > North America (and particularly the USA) sees many international > conferences > > all the time. > > It may also be a small point, but one of the features of WAC since 1990 > has > > been its opening session dedicated to bringing to the notice of > participants > > the local archaeological tradition. If this is continued at WAC5, then the > > local archaeological tradition will be that of North American > archaeology -- > > a tradition which is already influential if not dominant in other parts of > > the globe, especially in the guise of CRM practices. > > Dear John, > > I'm in no position to speak for WAC, but I don't think that there's any > agenda to turn it into an Anglo-American monopoloy. I do know that other > possibilities for WAC5 were explored - including Brazil and Australia - but > that they had fallen through by the time that the Washington bid emerged. I > am sure that if WAC5 is held in the USA, efforts to keep WAC6 outside of the > first world will be redoubled. > > On your point about the session on the local archaeological tradition, it > does strike me that one of the issues that WAC has always been concerned > with is the archaeology of indigenous minority communities: why not a day's > focus on the role of Native Americans in archaeology? > > All the best, > > Julian > > -- > _____________________________________________________ > Julian Thomas, > Professor of Archaeology, > School of Art History and Archaeology, > University of Manchester, > Oxford Road, Manchester M13 9PL > > Phone: 0161 275 3017 > Fax: 0161 275 3331 > > School Website: http://www.art.man.ac.uk/arthist/ > Dunragit Project Website: > http://www.arch.soton.ac.uk/Research/Dunragit/index.htm?blank.html > _____________________________________________________ >** --------- End Original Message ----------- ** >