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?