Tim: 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.
Gerry here: I like what you have to say. This is my position exactly.
The only real owner of the Past is the Past (I'm using a metaphor, but
it works well). And setting up the archaeological community as the
"experts" sounds good to me. After all, a good archaeologist must
incorporate art & science into his "curriculum" so that he might be able
to answer the questions posed to him as best he can. But there will
always be the antithesis to the question resulting in a debate, then a
synthesis (which becomes the thesis) occurs, followed by the antithesis
etc. So be it.
Tim: 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.
Gerry here: Most archaeologists don't even remove anything from the
dig. They record it and then the "goodies" are usually displayed in
some museum. Actually, I'd like to see more site museums and fewer of
those huge "flagships" like the British Museum.
Tim: 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?
Gerry: I don't understand your last paragraph. If you'd care to
rephrase it, I'd be glad to comment.
Gerry
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|