Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2000 12:09:23 -0500
From: Andrew Schoenhofer <[log in to unmask]>
Recently, Judith Winters wrote:
>I was particularly struck by ... Geraldine['s] statement that by
>publishing online, we are alerting lots of others to the existence of a
>site and how that might invite looting.
I think that web publishing of site reports that are "safe" (the site's
been dug completely) is vital to teaching people about the worth of
historical inquiry.
As well, I think it's very important to for archaeologists to learn from
each other, and if they spend some time keeping up with reports from around
the world they will learn something new. Here in Ontario people ossify
their theories and interpretations about 5 minutes after they defend their
dissertations. Symposia and conferences are under-attended . . . but that's
another problem.
>Or are we in fact protecting by publishing - by explaining exactly why
>site X is important?
This would be fine if people cared, but generally here in the New World the
history of an area is far less important than ethnocentric history (people
and movements, not place). People find it interesting that Natives have
lived in Toronto for 10,000 years but don't really care enough to save
sites or learn more about them. The idea that we Europeans are conquerors
and therefore can overrun anything in our way is still very strong. Even
"our own" buildings are being destroyed for modern development with nary a
thought, and they're only 200 years old (which may be nothing to Europeans
but is about 1/2 of the span of Euro-Canadian history).
--------------------------------------------------------------
Andrew Schoenhofer [log in to unmask]
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|