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
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|