Whose Muse? A Brief Book Review

Whose Muse is a collection of essays that has been edited by James Cuno. The essays in this book aim to establish the purpose of museums and their function in society. Cuno’s introduction goes through the politics of museum life, and recent cases which exemplify how museums are used as political platforms (Mayor Rudolph Giuliani v. The Brooklyn Museum of Art), centres for education, and also as promotion of a Brand and a name (Guggenheim). In my opinion, this book seems to be searching for a “Museum Identity” if you will, as the essays examine different components of different museums to demonstrate how they operate under varying circumstances. There are quite a few essays in this book, however, I am going to look closely at Neil MacGregor’s essay as I found it the most interesting and informative, and I really enjoyed his view on interpretations of art and the emotional connection of the viewer.

In Neil MacGregors essay, “A Pentecost in Trafalgar Square”, he mentions that the National Gallery in Britain was set up by Parliament, and even in the 19^th century the members of parliament would choose which works would be displayed; the purpose for the Gallery at this point in time was not education but “simply to ensure that the poor could have the consolation of pictures just as the rich did… to cement the bonds of union between the richer and the poorer orders of the state.” It is interesting to read about the original purpose of museum – and I find it fascinating that the museums were used to bring culture together (rather than drive it apart, as we see in today’s world). Originally, the gallery was not intended for artistic purposes but to allow the classes to admire and appreciate something that was free for everyone – something, regardless of education could bring them together. It is somewhat humbling, as after typing that I realize that 200 years ago, the intentions of this museum probably had a better grip on the importance of Cultural Heritage than we do today. Furthermore, in MacGregor’s article he discusses the layout of the National Gallery and how pieces are kept together chronologically so as to show the progression of art, or a specific motif. However, he keeps to the idea that they are not trying to influence how people interpret the art, only to provide them with the context and works with which they can be compared. This seems like a very intelligent way to display art, as it allows the viewer to come to their own conclusion, though displays it in a way that visitors unfamiliar with the timeline can better create context for the image.

MacGregor also discusses how new technology can be used to demonstrate to the average viewer how a painting my have looked originally. As He states on page 32, Jean Baptiste Greuze’s Girl Weeping over her Dead Canary originally brought tears to the eyes of the original viewers, however, over time the pigments have changed (due to vegetable dying) and the yellow canary is now green. Modern viewers look at the Painting and its title and question why the Canary is green, rather than look at the expression on the girls face. He then divulges that if the museum were to put this explanation next to the photo, visitors would be focused on this fact alone and once again neglect to study the pain on the girls face. This problem can be remedied with new technologies as they can alter the images without touching the original – “With digitized imagery we can reconstitute the picture and show a result closer to the artist’s intention.” This again raises ethical questions as MacGregor asks to what extent we should intervene with the visitors experience of a picture. He then goes into a discussion about restorations and to what point is it beneficial or imposing on the artist’s original work.

Neil MacGregor’s article examines the responsibilities of Museums in terms of the pictures, their artists and the public, and then divides this further by asking “If we cannot meet these responsibilities equally, how do we decide which to meet? How is the public’s trust in our decision preserved?” He questions how museums obtain public trust when they separate works of art (such as renaissance alter pieces, which were done in 3 frames), and at the same time, how this is taking responsibility for the artist, which would have intended for the three scenes to be viewed together. I prefer MacGregor’s conclusion that the importance lies for museums to harbour the meaning of these paintings and to bring people into contact with these powerful paintings, deepening their access to the historical and contemporary meanings. In a way, MacGregor demonstrates how the purpose of the National Gallery really has not changed over the centuries, that the rich and poor come together to view a painting and together they feel the same emotions, bringing the space between them that much closer.

Overall this collection of essays aims to discover ways to retain public trust and examines the ways in which museums and galleries can present artefacts and paintings in a way that encourages individual thought but also educates. Sometimes it is worth it to look past the controversies and display art that evokes true emotion as it is the only thing that can bring all viewers together – and it is surely a sign of great art. This book sort of reminded me of an article I read where they examined how museums in recent years have been pouring funds into building bigger and grander facilities in an attempt to generate income and tourism, but due to the recession these investments are not paying off and museums are struggling to stay afloat. This relates to this book, and the opinion I have developed through reading it, that the money would be much better spent going into new acquisitions and funding for research and education. People care more about what is inside these buildings rather than the outer veneer which houses them.

Stop thinking about the economy and expansion... and enjoy the art.

Today there was an article on the New York Times website titled Moscow Cultural Landmark is Seen as Threatened, which outlines how the Prime Minister signed a decree that would allow developers to demolish a Soviet-era cultural landmark, the Central house of Artists, which houses paintings by Malevich and Kandinsky among others. Although the title is more of an attention grabber than the actual problem at hand, seeing as there have been no rumours of the destruction of this place, just the idea that now that this decree has been signed it is a possibility, it brings into question what society really values.

Without getting too political, it is clear that when it comes to governments, there is a lot more emphasis on the economy and ways to generate money, than on museums and preservation. This article demonstrates how the Prime Minister signed this decree which would essentially allow a billion-dollar real estate company to come in, demolish a well know monument which houses many Russian works that serve as symbols of their culture, only to be rebuilt as housing complexes and shopping malls. It is a sad truth that heritage sites and funding for the arts are often overlooked as governments choose to invest tax payer money in the economy and health related fields. While this is fine, governments need to realize how important cultural landmarks are – cities, provinces, countries would lack an identity if they were to be stripped of the arts, focused solely on science and money-making.

This can also be related to the world heritage list set out by UNESCO, as well as the 1970 UNESCO conventions wherein it outlines the importance of the protection of cultural property. Firstly, although the artwork would be displaced for a while, it would certainly find a home, but who is to say that the government or private sectors will fun a new museum? Together these works stand as a testament to Russia’s artistic history, but apart they are merely fragments – masterpieces, but fragments to the big picture. I’m not insinuating it is necessary to keep all of these works together, but obviously this is something citizens feel strongly about as when the information was released, critics jumped at the opportunity to find problems with it. In short, why ruin a good thing? I’m sure these big companies could find somewhere else to build, without destroying the home of so many great works.

Reputation... what reputation?

The case study I received yesterday told the story of an academic up for tenure, who is writing his publication on archaic work in the USA. He is being pushed to publish by his department head, but he is concerned because some of the data he has, or more so, what his paper is based on is a collection of objects which a collector, Mr. Judge, allowed him access to. He is confident that the pieces he used for his paper have the proper provenance, but he has heard rumours that parts of Mr. Judge’s collection have in fact been looted. He is ethically torn because the information he has is good and has led him to conclusions that he otherwise would not have come to, but he fears that his association with a collector will tarnish his reputation; therefore he is willing to risk tenure because he does not want to give the wrong impression to the field, which by the way, he is not even a part of yet.

I know that you may already be able to anticipate what I am going to say – and I don’t think it’s fair to say that I encourage to breaking laws. Sometimes breaking the rules needs to be done in order to move forward and show people that things can work a different way. Hey – the Taliban has laws… the Nazi’s had laws – those are rules we are willing to break. Not comparing Archaeological laws to the Taliban or Nazi’s… but, I’m just extending the argument to its extreme to show that sometimes – it needs to be done. But I digress…

I would say that this academic should publish the work, based on the fact that there are only rumours that parts of the collection have been looted, not solid proof. If every rumour we heard was the truth – Hollywood would be much more messed up than it is at the moment. In addition, the objects that this academic is using have a provided provenance, so their study should not be limited based on the collection they come from. As I say repeatedly, the knowledge that we can gain far outweighs personal conflicts of whether or not it will damage someone’s reputation – that is frankly selfish – and as I mentioned before as well – Archaeologists are the ones that create these rifts and classes within their own field… what’s that word again? Elitist. I can see the portion of this argument that suggests maybe he shouldn’t publish – because yes it could be viewed as supporting looting, but the fact is looting happens anyways, we may as well learn what we can from it. It is the archaeologist’s academic responsibility to publish everything on the subject. You know, historians will complain about not having enough from the past to study, but then they go and discount objects based on where they came from – it’s ludicrous!

On a side note… I really enjoyed Lana’s presentation, and I agree with much of what she has to say. Maybe because I am a bit of a naïve optimist myself – but I think that everyone needs to let go of things for the greater good of everything running smoothly. There has to be a middle road!

Treasure Hunting paying off? Maybe a new career...

Recently, there was an Anglo-Saxon hoard found in Staffordshire, England. The hoard contained over 1800 pieces of gold, silver and jewelled objects, and was estimated to be worth 3.3 million pounds. The Birmingham museum is now attempting to raise the money to buy the pieces off of Fred Johnson, the Farmer who found the hoard.

There has already been a small book published with the images of the pieces, which I had found surprising seeing as how long it usually takes for publications within the archaeological community. What I find interesting about this hoard though is that the pieces in this hoard are thought to be somewhat of a “missing link” for Anglo-Saxon and medieval historians as the pieces demonstrate that there may have been a stronger Norse influence on Anglo-Saxon art than previously anticipated. Of course, the pieces must be examined to a further extent, but it also means that all the scholarship done on Anglo-Saxon art to this point in time must be reviewed as this discovery changes everything.

This is an excellent example of how things are constantly changing through the study of history, and had this man not come across this hoard (what others may believe is looting or treasure hunting) scholars and professors would still be operating under old ideas instead of moving forward with new and current research. I believe it is important for things like this to occur; had it not been for Fred Johnson academics would be unaware of this hoard – I believe that the UK has a good system wherein the “treasure hunters” do not face penalizations if they come across archaeological artefacts, but are instead rewarded. As I said in class, you hear a lot more about looting in the Mediterranean and other areas than you do in the UK so these laws may be worth examining and implementing in other areas.

Source: http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/nov/26/staffordshire-anglo-saxon-hoard-millions

Essay Season... but where are all the articles?

The past two weeks we have been talking about publishing in the academic world. As it is essay season, I feel inclined to use my own experience in attempting to get articles to form this entry. I am not concerned so much with how often archaeologists publish or what they publish on, but the problem seems to be making this information available to the general public and even more-so the academic community, specifically students. I have spent the past 2 days searching for specific articles that come up on the Brock database when I search for them, but for some reason tracking them down online or in the Brock library has taken up more than 8 hours of my time. This is 8 hours of me searching for the article, not finding and reading the article.

Another point of frustration is that Brock says that they have an article in their periodical section, so taking time out of my day, going up to the school, going to the seventh floor, finding the periodical the article is supposed to be in – and behold! The article is not there, and Brocks records were incorrect. I ended up deciding that I would simply have to write the paper without the article – but really, students are being robbed!

As members of a university community there is an expectation that our money will go towards databases which contain these articles. It seems that Brock, and I don’t know about other universities, seems to buy memberships to sites which only provide the bibliography for the article. This is frustrating because now students know what is out there, but have no way to access it.

I guess the point of this entry in relation to the course is that if publications are meant to be accessible to the academic community, and in turn students then there needs to be a simpler way of getting this information to the students. There are databases but most require a subscription, so if a university does not subscribe to that particular database (which trust me, it’s happened), the students are out of luck.

Furthermore, if this information is supposed to be public knowledge why must libraries and academics pay for access to these online journals – it isn’t like they have to print the paper off… what are their overheads???

In class we discussed whether or not it is ethical to disinter the remains of humans in order to gain valuable knowledge about the past. One presenter argued that seeing as these people were buried “hundreds of years ago” there is no way for someone in contemporary society to feel a connection to them. To an extent, this may be correct for a large number of people, however, it seems that within smaller groups there is still a connection to the past. This should be taken into account, and not discredited as we must keep in mind that groups such as the aboriginal tribes have operated under the same religion for centuries therefore giving them a direct connection to their past and enabling them to hold their elders in high esteem.

It is wrong of current academics to force modern views onto these groups as they seem quite content with their oral history and find no need for there to be excavations in order for them to learn about their past. If it is bodies from a certain time period archaeologists are in search of, they should exhaust all the other resources before entering into a situation where parties may become upset or cause legal action due to the desire to know about the past.

Working at a cemetery for the last 4 years, it is pretty obviously that death is a very serious thing among families. Although there are newer parts to the cemetery, the older parts always interest me most, and I often find myself wondering at what point it will be permissible to dig up these graves and extrapolate from these bodies to gain knowledge about the Victorian period (not to mention all the amazing clothes that would be there… just a side note haha). Not to mention that being able to locate actual graves would help me greatly in my research and in putting together the history of the cemetery – but this is not an option and I must continually cross reference everything. From my experience at this cemetery, and even though it is only about 200 years old, I believe that if we started to disinter people in the older sections, many people in St. Catharine’s would get very upset. Sometimes we must sacrifice knowledge for culture, and if any one person objects to the opening of a grave, we must respect their wishes.

What's your motivation??

The November 10^th New York Times article entitled “Dakis Joanou’s Show at New Museum Raises Ethical Flags”, gives an account of a new exhibit to be shown at The New Museum of Contemporary Art in Manhattan. The main issue being raised by this article is that Dakis Joanou is a trustee of the museum as well as a donor and long time patron of the curator. Within the antiquities world, some view this as a conflict of interest, as in these hard economic times, a museum displaying “contemporary” art may increase the value – therefore increasing what Joanou could sell these pieces for if he so chose.

The American Association of Museums has set “guidelines” for this sort of thing and when it comes to exhibiting borrowed objects they state that “transparency, intellectual integrity and institutional control” must be stressed, but the guideline is simply to outline the potential conflicts when members turn into lenders. In a phone interview, Joanou stated that this was a non-issue for him and insinuates that even if he were not a trustee, his collection would still be questioned.

I am leaning towards siding with Joanou in this case, as over the past couple of weeks it has come to my attention that in the art world, people are always going to have their opinions of what others are doing, and sure, it may look like Joanou is attempting to increase the value of his collection, but to be quite honest – this man lives in Athens, he most likely is very well off as apparently he has no problems spending $2700 on a basketball suspended in a tank of liquid – so why would he have any other desire than to share his collection with the American public?

Within the academic world it seems that very often collectors are scrutinized for wanting to exhibit their private collections, because certainly economic motivations are the only reasons they could possibly have for sharing. Even Shelby White, the epitome of “The Good Collector”, has her motivations questioned. I understand that museums and the antiquities world must maintain integrity, but at some point it becomes a paranoid scramble wherein everyone involved must be questioned. And I have to ask, to what point? It is normal for collectors to be trustees and patrons to museums, and the very title “collector” tells us that they collect – so naturally at some point they will want to exhibit their collections. If they chose to go to another museum, would this not cause another tidal wave of “ethical questions”, as they would have seemingly betrayed the museum to which they are a trustee, and they MUST have monetary motivations to this other museum. See… there is no winning!

Source:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/11/arts/design/11museum.html?scp=1&sq=museum&st=cse

There are bigger things happening...

During yesterdays class we discussed archaeology and war, and in turn the looting that comes out of it. As I have mentioned in previous entries sometimes things are out of our control and we must simply let our history do to monuments and objects what is intended to happen. That is not to say that we shouldn't do everything in our power to protect objects and buildings, but to recognize when we are being a little rediculous and that we cannot save every piece of the past. In my opinion this becomes very clear when human lives are involved. In all honesty there are bigger things happening in the world than archaeology and it is not worth losing lives over. For example, the case of the Bamyan Bhuddas which were destroyed by the Taliban in 2001. Yes, this is a horrible occurance and should never have happened, but in all honesty, the Taliban has done a lot worse, and had there been mass protestations of the destruction of the Bhuddas, I'm sure the world would have seen just how much worse it could have been.

In class certain students went onto say that taking items from war torn countries is illegal and should not be done because "stealing is wrong". Obviously, I have some different ideas about this. It is my opinion that it is better to save objects and risk their provenance and risk that they may not be returned to a museum than to lose them forever. Even if the objects are not returned to a museum, chances are 50 years from now they will turn up and provide academics with the ability to study and learn from them. It seems that there is no right or wrong answer because let's say, hypothetically, that I knew the Bamyan Bhuddas were going to be destroyed and I knew of a way to remove them in their entirety without damaging them, and had a location in my home city where I knew they would be safe. So the night before they are set to be destroyed, I go with some colleagues and remove the Bhudda's and they are saved from being destroyed. With this argument, certain students in the class would make this an illegal action, but at the same time those students complain about how the Bamyan Bhuddas have been destroyed! I know this "hypothetical" stretches the argument out, but it just goes to show that there is no winning in archaeology and someone is always going to have a problem with what is being done. Frustrating? I think so.

Furthermore, I just wanted to clear up a statement I made in class when asked about excavations on occupied territories. I had said that when there are bigger things happening, (i.e. war and death) that no, excavations should not be allowed. But I didn't clarify the whole "war and death" thing. So... in the case of Cyprus, I suppose I would say that excavations can be carried out - as long as there is an agreement between Turkey and Cyprus... because then we enter into the argument of "Who does this belong to", which is tiring in itself.

Nationalism is not an excuse!

Nationalism is a great thing as it gives members of a country the ability to identify with something - whether it is a glorious past, a shared hero, or simply a flag - it can do wonders. But like every good thing, there is a limit; you know, cake is good but sometimes you need to share it or you get a little sick of eating the same thing over, and over again. From an outsider perspective, this seems to be the case with Egypt. They are not the only ones however, as we discussed in class, Greece seems to be embracing their classical heritage without a thought to the 1000s of years between then and now.

I bring this up because it really bothers me that Egyptian officials are using artefacts as political pawns. First it was the panels at the Louvre, now it is the Nefertiti in Berlin. Where does it end? According to the NY times article, The Nefertiti bust was acquired in 1912 - with permission of the Egyptian government. The Egyptians claim they want it back because of nationalism... they lived without it for almost 100 years now... I think they'll be fine. And who is to say that this Nefertiti bust is now not a part of the nationalism of Berlin and Germany as a whole? As discussed, Germany also embarked on the imperialist ideals and imported many great works to their country. I don't have a problem with the fact that they want it back, I have a problem with the fact that they are making up lame excuses as to why they should have it back. Nationalism? Give me a break. Humanity cannot stake a claim on a past that belongs to everybody. We are all Egyptian, we are all Greek, we are all English. You can't say that a Turk living in Berlin does not appreciate the alter of Pergamon because he is not viewing it in Turkey.

Say it like it is. They want it back because it's pretty and it gets alot of attention. I'd respect them a little bit more if they'd just flat out say it.

Source:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/24/arts/design/24abroad.html?ref=design

Pointless Pondering

I've been thinking a lot lately about what actually separates the Archaeologists from the Treasure hunters. When you look back on how the field of archaeology was developed, it certainly stemmed from the 19th century colonial habit of collecting things as a way to demonstrate wealth and prominence - really no different than the collectors today - collectors who would pay to have treasures removed from their country of origin. The fact is that today's archaeologists would not have jobs if yesterdays "archaeologists" didn't encourage the discovery and possible looting of sites. It is through their mistakes and achievements that modern archaeological practices emerged.

I don't really understand how archaeologists (and by this I really mean any academics in the field) can find a separation between the two, given their past history. If anything, this history attests to the fact that although mankind certainly doesn't get it on the first time around, we learn and build off of what we know - which in a way sort of discredits the accusations that farmers in an artifact heavy area would not know how to treat an object.

Even looking back through history, it is in human nature to collect and covet the past, and prior to the 19th century it seems no one really attempted to even document what they had found and where they had found it - but today we simply brush it off as the artefacts "History" or "provinance". It is perfectly acceptable because people 100 years ago did it and not us. We aren't allowed. In a way it is good, but I also wonder if the field of archaeology has arrived at the point where there are so many regulations you cannot move forward.

Who knows... just random pondering.

The Lewis Chessmen or Scandinavian Barbies?

This week has been an interesting one for me in terms of historical findings. Firstly, Tuesday afternoon I attended a MARS guest lecture by Dr. Caldwell on the Lewis Chessmen. The talk was very informative and while he was speaking I could not help but to apply the things I had been learning in the Archaeological Ethics course.

The Lewis Chessmen were thought to be discovered by a farmer in the Town of Lewis in Scotland – and it has been argued that this is the largest and most important find to ever come out of Scottish soil. However, the pieces were not given to academics right away, but sold to a local museum which split the pieces up. As it stands today, 11 pieces are in Scotland and 82 are at the British Museum.

The first problem here is the provenance of these pieces. It seems all too often that one hears a story of a farmer making a discovery and passing it off for money. But this cannot be trusted – what if they were found far from a local farm, and in fact on the beaches of Lewis, washed up on shore? Historians argue many points, and it seems the most popular story given to the general public is that these pieces must have been dropped or forgotten by a passing merchant. What is not taken into account however, after careful study, is that these pieces are from different dates, which can be determined by the artwork, shape of the shields, facial structures and varying degrees of craftsmanship. These pieces, although in the same hoard, would be hard to argue that they were brand new and a merchant was sailing along the coast selling them.

Furthermore, after studying the pieces it has been concluded that they came from a church workshop in Northern Norway. They are also made from Walrus tusks and whale teeth – not the easiest materials to come by, and certainly not the cheapest. It is more likely that these “chess” pieces were commissioned by wealthy families of the day, which discounts the theory that it was a travelling merchant, and perhaps a family collection.

Gaming in the 11^th-13^th centuries was very popular, however, chess was only becoming popular in the north towards the end of the 13^th century. The fact that these are called the “Lewis Chessman” may also be a bit of a stretch as the pieces range in date from the 11^th to 13^th centuries. Is this a classic example of how an object becomes their name? Of the 93 pieces, 3 chess sets could be made, but there are also round disks which suggests another game popularized in Norse culture called Hnefatafl – a game in which the king is located in the centre of the board and the pieces must surround and protect. It seems likely that this collection of gaming pieces was somewhat of a collection of games, with pieces that could be used in 3-4 different scenarios.

Another thing that was useful in this talk was to see how much scholarship had been done on the pieces even though they were not found by archaeologists. It is amazing the amount of information that has been gained from their study, and it makes me sad to think that there are objects sitting unattended because of how they were discovered.

Finally, I would like to make a point about ownership. These pieces were found on the Scottish soil in the 19^th century, but they date back to a time when the coasts of Scotland were inhabited by Scandinavians. Are these a part of Scottish history or Scandinavian history? Perhaps their home is not in Edinburgh or London, but in the cities of Norway or Denmark.

On a side note, after this lecture we travelled up to the 10^th floor special collections to take a look at some of the medieval documents that have been acquired and the others that were discovered over the summer. They have one piece, dating from approximately 1241-3 which is a land transfer in England. This piece was discovered about a year ago while cleaning out a filing cabinet. After doing some research they discovered that it was donated to Brock University in 1974, by a local collector. I asked the archivist about the provenance, and while he could not provide much information he said something along the lines of “Well, he was a very established collector and I spoke to his daughter who works at the ROM and he never acquired things illegally”… I’m sure this is true, but after doing research for my presentation, I think it is a little naïve to believe that someone has a wide collection of things which they know for a fact are legitimate.

Provenance... or "Who really cares?"

In class we discussed whether or not it is ethical for Archaeologists or academics to use artefacts without provenance in their research and published papers. In the case of Renfrew, using unprovenanced items in his study and publishing it in a “coffee table” book may have resulted in legitimizing the Cycladic figures that his friends had acquired.

Personally, I believe that although some artefacts may not have provenance or provenience, it does not mean they should be discounted and not studied. As I have mentioned, I believe this creates a sort of “elitist” antiquities market, wherein only those objects which have been discovered through archaeological findings are given any value. I think that if Renfrew had not used the unprovenanced items he would have been neglecting his responsibility as an academic. As mentioned in class, knowing that 2 out of 20 students represent something does not say anything about the whole. Although the exact history may not be known about an object, it should still be used, studied and admired – regardless of how it was found.

This argument becomes a slippery slope, especially if you start to think hypothetically. Let’s say for instance, someone found “the holy grail” and removed it from where they found it, sold it to a dealer, and then academics had the chance to see it and realized what a remarkable object it is and how it needs to be studied. I find it really hard to believe that in a case such as that archaeologists and academics would just turn a blind eye and say “too bad”. Obviously this is a fictional example, and is a bit absurd but – really? I think academics become their own worst enemies because they start to create prejudices within their own field. If it’s all about knowledge and the discovery of the past, I would think that they would want to study every object, regardless of its context.

If I wanted to go to Disney Land, I'd book a Trip.

October 1, 2009

It seems that most tourist sites have somewhat of a “Mickey Mouse” spin on them in order to gain more tourists and in turn, more funding. After visiting Turkey this summer, I can see how that could happen. It is not so much that the sites were parodies of themselves, but they seemed to play into the Western conception of the Great Classical period, where everything was clean, crisp and white – while the history recorded after the fall of the Roman empire seems to be swept under the rug, because really, who cares what happened in Greece after the 5^th century C.E., right?

It seems like these sites become glorified, and in that the average tourist loses the real meaning of the society because through all the sensationalism context is lost. Tourists see what the tour guides and the government want them to; it is less an endeavor in education and more so how to make a quick buck from the visiting tour group and present them with the most interesting information, not the most accurate. On a side note, I also find that this is a problem with the history network – they will show the viewer the most interesting theory about some ‘mystery’ when really it is an outdated theory that has been dismissed by most modern historians… but I digress.

Who gets to decide which “history” the public sees? When I was in Turkey, I had been really looking forward to going to the Crusader Castle of St. Peter and the Knights of St. John – and it was lovely, it really was. But it was really saddening to me that a 14^th century chapel had been gutted to exhibit somewhat of a “Disney” display of underwater archaeology finds. My problem with this is – who got to decide that this chapel wasn’t good enough to be preserved? Sure the display is nice, but I mean – as archaeologists or curators, shouldn’t there be some interest in preserving things even if they aren’t classical?

Source it...

September 27, 2009

In this weeks class we discussed tourism and whether or not it is beneficial to archaeology. We discussed the funding that is brought in by tourism and how governments take this money and allocate it based on the most popular tourist sites, rather than taking the income generated by a specific site and returning it to that specific site for improvements and maintenance. While visiting Turkey this summer, I found that this was a problem as there were many beautiful sites, but most of them were overgrown and only those that are near cruise ship harbours (Ephesus) and could bring in thousands of tourists a day seemed to be given funding for maintenance.

I suppose this is a good thing because Ephesus is a large site and has a lot to offer; but if all the money is going towards popular sites alone, interest in other sites is neglected, and it goes against what archaeology actually needs, because if no one is interested then there aren’t going to be any funds. Yes, the popular sites would still be generating money, but if people only want to see popular sites, then how can an archaeologist justify and generate interest in new endeavours?

Another problem I have with this system is that as a tourist when you are paying money to see a site, there is sort of an expectation that it will be accessible, clean, and informative rather than overgrown and with information about that particular site no where to be found on the actual site.

I think it would make more sense to sell the sites to private organizations as opposed to the government organizations which can only focus so much attention on history, and in my opinion generally just see the dollar signs rather than the educational and sentimental value of a site to a tourist. With private organizations managing the sites, the smaller groups would be able to focus more attention on their collection of sites and in turn run promotions, advertise and even possibly create tours of closely linked sites so tourists would be able to get more of a feel for what ancient cities were like – seeing that there is more than just “the one”. Added to that, having these sites owned by private companies would allow for more maintenance and I believe that more could be done at these sites in terms of “attractions” and discoveries.

Can we PLEASE leave our mark?

September 24, 2009

When it comes to restoration/reconstruction in the world of archaeology, things seem to get a little tense. It is easy to criticize historians and archaeologists of the past because in retrospect, we always know better – but I find it difficult to do this because even though some poor decisions were made, their mistakes aided in the development of archaeology today.

Personally, I don’t think there is a big problem with restoration/reconstruction – as long is it is educated and informed. I appreciate the importance of preserving something in its original state, and ideally, any restoration should be done so the restored parts are noticeable. Without restoring or reconstructing objects, I think it’s hard for the average person with no background in history but just a general appreciation, to understand and visualize how certain objects would have been employed in the past.

As someone who studies history though, I have to say that anastylosis is probably the best method for recreating the past, as was done with the Library of Celsus at Ephesus. However, I can’t deny that viewing a reconstruction (not a cheesy Disney-fied one) is also really interesting as well – and even allows for tourists to better interact with the past.

On a side note, I really must say how disappointed I was to learn that at most ancient sites, the statuary has been removed and replaced with plaster moulds. Even at Ephesus, the sculptures featured on the library are not original but projections of what the originals are thought to have looked like. Most tourists don’t get the chance to discover this, which is really unfortunate because it kind of betrays the “legitimacy” of the site if they are claiming that it is not a reconstruction – when clearly, certain parts are.

I also feel that reconstruction, although it is not looked highly upon today, is important to the history of a site. If you look at the history of any cathedral, basilica, castle or ancient city – there are imprints from almost every century. Additions, improvements, and yes, even restorations can be reported when examining really any historical building. Take the Hagia Sophia for example, built in the time of Justinian, modified by the Muslims, and then renovated and restored by the Italians in the 19^th century. All of these factors come together to make these buildings multi-layered, and contribute to an exciting past. What mark are we going to leave if we shy away from touching these buildings?