 |
 |
Hi Gerry, >I guess I was referring to the archaeologists as >caregivers to the past; as folks who do the history and then do the >debate. The point I'm trying to make is that archaeologist's alone are not responsible for the construction of history. There are many different histories, official and unofficial. Even our different 'official' disciplines tend to write slightly different versions of the past, emphasizing those elements they see relevant. For example, Precolombian 'history' under Americanist Archaeology tends to be a history of cultural systems rather than people -- and as a result has been subjected to critiques from Aboriginal people that state archaeological research is dehumanizing. I tend to think they are right, and the focus on system has produced a very specific type of history which I would hope is not the only version of the past. >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. I think you might be missing my point. The government owns the 'archaeological record'. The 'archaeological record' can only be directly equated with 'the past' if correct interpretations leap phoenix-like from excavation blocks. The record is much like the PRO in the UK or the National Archives in Canada: it is the repository of data with which pasts are written. Both the PRO and the Archives are 'owned'/'managed' by the government, while the interpretations built on them are not. This obviously takes 'resource' metaphors to the extreme (which have likewise been critiqued), but it should make the differences between the record and the past/history clear. > > 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! Agreed. >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. To be honest, I find this preferable in Canada. Our government, like others, does produce its official versions of history. [Although, if I remember correctly, here these histories are written by contracted academics. The result is that the 'official history' is rarely an explicit piece of government propaganda -- but may unavoidably reflect certain nationalist hegemonies.] But, the bulk of the history being written is by people outside the government. This effectively separates the 'stewards' of the record from the 'makers' of history, and allows for (ideally) unfettered access to archaeological data. This is important because people can contest interpretations they think are wrong -- they can't be refused access to a collection because the Principal Investigator who dug a site wants to protect a pet theory. If ownership was entirely with Aboriginal people or with archaeologists, you might find the 'stewards' restricting access based on interpretive prejudices. Obviously, government ownership of the record becomes problematic if they are also the only official makers of history. As long as the government stays ambivalent, I'm quite happy to have them manage the record. > > 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. Yup. But 'control' is far more than a single group owning and interpreting the archaeological record. It rests in the power to get a single version of the past legitimized and publicized through the media, education etc. The problems found in 'control' over the past will not be corrected through a change in the way we define 'stewardship' or 'ownership', because 'control' has little to do with where we keep the artifacts. Jay _____________________________________ ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%