A sad day for cultural heritage in Belize

Well,  it was certainly a crazy semester, and for not having written a single entry all term, I apologize profusely. 

I had been looking for something to write about to get this blog going again, and today, the answer just fell into my lap, or well, my inbox. 

The headline "Contractor Bulldozes Mayan Temple" immediately sunk my heart. My first thought was "please tell me this didn't happen in Mexico!" and for that, I am deeply ashamed, because the truth is that it doesn't matter where it happened. The mere fact that it happened, is an atrocity. 

Here is what the temple resembled a few days ago

Maya Temple at Lamanai in Belize, similar to Nohmul

and this is what the once- tallest structure in all northern Belize looks like now

While most news outlets are blaming the owner of the company, I feel that we have no one to truly blame but ourselves for our inactivity. More awareness of the situation could have prevented this temple from being destroyed. Petitions could have been signed and lobbying could have occurred, but instead, we waited until it was over, and now frantically attempt to find someone to blame. Yes, this man is responsible and should be charged with the destruction of cultural heritage, but every single person writing about how barbaric this man is should also consider what they might have done to prevent it from occurring.

Why is it that we only hear about these things once they have occurred? More awareness to the issues of cultural heritage protection will hopefully prevent atrocities like this from happening in the future.

On the Titanic Exhibition, continued.

Last post I began to divulge my thoughts on my recent Titanic exhibition experience. I concluded the post after the discussion of the portrayal of life onboard the Titanic for the three classes, and the way in which this section of the exhibit utilizes artifacts, pictures, and historical accounts to draw in the visitor.

The exhibition morphs from the dining halls and passenger-centered halls to the furnaces that kept the ship going, changing its focus from the passengers onboard the ship, to the most unfortunate group on the vessel: the crew. Out of almost 900 crew members aboard the vessel, only 214 survived the disaster; in other words, 24 percent of the crew survived, yet the vessel could not have functioned and sailed without this group of workers.

The room is barely lit, and provides the illusion of being in the boiler rooms quite accurately. The music has changed once again from the cheery music to something which might be imagined to be what the crew shoveling coal heard every day, the sound of labourers hard at work, and the roaring of the engine of the massive ship. This section of the exhibit contains no artifacts of the crew, but instead contains parts of the ship, and some of the coal which has survived.

The last room of the exhibition is large, and in truth contains various motives. First, it transports the passenger to the dawn of the sinking. The music plays the sound of wind whooshing around, and there is the famous "iceberg" which people are encouraged to touch. There are accounts of passengers watching the ship go down plastered along the walls, and the lighting is a dim blue, channeling the cloudless frozen dawn. There are exquisite artifacts in display, such as a small golden purse and its contents, and many people's personal belongings: clothing, shoes, diaries, money, papers, etc. Further down, in the last corner of the exhibit is a section dedicated to the expeditions which were carried out in 2010. Here, the exhibition boasts RMST's mission to "inform the development of standards in underwater archaeology for maritime heritage management" through the analysis of data gathered with their expeditions. They also claim that a "key element" in RMST's mission is to "faithfully and respectfully preserve the legacy and memory of Titanic..."
It is difficult to believe anything else than what they tell you after experiencing the exhibit, that is, unless the visitor has any prior knowledge of the debate surrounding the 'salvage' of artifacts from the wreck site.

The exhibit concludes with pictures from their expedition (as seen in several publications) and with a section on conservation. To be honest, this section was the most disappointing for me, as it did not really enlighten me in any way. It did not divulge any of the processes by which artifacts are conserved, or the hardships or conserving such items. I thought that especially with the "jewels of Titanic" in residence, the conservation section would be more enlightening.
It was especially disappointing since my companions had been asking me "and how did they conserve this? How come [x item] still survives?!" to which I always answered "wait till the end, then you may have answers!"

But answers did not come.
I do, however, admit that I found the statement of their goals to be quite eloquently stated: "[To] stop deterioration while allowing recovered objects to be exhibited wearing the trauma they have experienced during their decades on the ocean floor." The trauma they have experienced— I wish I would've thought of writing such a description!

The exhibit concludes with a statement that the "recovered artifacts will remain long after... as a reminder of the legendary liner, life's frailty, and the human spirit's enduring strength."
With that, the exhibition concludes, and there are two computers for visitors to leave their thoughts.

My major annoyance was that neither of these computers worked for the better part of 20 minutes, during which my companions were kind enough to be patient and wait until someone (aka myself) could fix them in order for me to leave my comments.

Overall, I did enjoy the experience, although I am now as conflicted as ever as to the artifacts. No, they shouldn't have been removed and no, they should not be exploited commercially, but how can such an exhibition,which encourages the learning of the layperson about an event in history, be so terrible? In the end, I feel that if only RMST would discuss the opposition in their exhibition (i.e.- briefly bring up the issues with the collection of the artifacts) the exhibition could be much more educational (for those who wish to learn, which won't be everyone who visits the exhibition) and a little bit better in terms of the ethical display of the artifacts.

Again, this, and the fact that there were glaring typos in their display, were the two things which most annoyed me, closely followed by their lack of an educational conservation section at the end of the exhibit.

And now, I shall lay all this Titanic business to rest... for now.....

It's always a good time to discuss the Titanic, isn't it?

Happy New Year!!
Well, over the holidays I visited the Titanic exhibition in Atlanta, and boy would I like to tell you what I think!

I had previously been to one of the Titanic Exhibitions (also in Atlanta, but at the Aquarium), and so this time around (after having taken the ethics class and writing my paper on the Titanic) I endeavored to carefully analyze the exhibit and its presentation of the artifacts.
While I will not be discussing the ethics regarding the salvage of the artifacts themselves, I will focus on the display information and the presentation of the story.

First of all, I was quite hesitant to attend due to the high admission price. At 24 USD a head, I didn't want to bankrupt my family if the trip became a family expedition! In the end, my mother and my aunt accompanied me, which provided me not only with great company, but also with differing viewpoints.

As we enter the exhibit we receive our boarding passes. My aunt and I are second class women, my mom is a first class woman. We automatically speculate that she survived, whereas we are unsure of our own fates. True to what I have read, the exhibit begins at the "conception" of the ship— all the way from the blueprints to its being furnished and ready to receive passengers at Southampton.
In this section, there are some artifacts which I consider are not quite as relevant to the exhibition story, as they do not have much to do with the conception of the ship. There are some rivets and the like which display how the ship was fastened, but overall, the artifacts here are just for entertainment value, and in my personal opinion, do not add much to the "story."
I also immediately notice that there is no mention of where these artifacts come from, although beneath each description, there is a catalogue number for the item (the last two digits of the year in which it was found followed by numbers), although  this is not brought to the attention of the visitor until the very last section of the exhibit.

Much like I remember from the Aquarium exhibit, the visitor proceeds from this area into the Titanic, where there are explanations of the grandeur of the ship, the luxuries of first, second, and even third class, including the dining menus for each of these classes and some examples of the equipment needed to prepare meals for so many people. The room includes pictures as well as artifacts, and the artifacts displayed here are much more relevant.

In this section of the exhibit, the "Jewels of Titanic" are temporarily being housed. You enter a small room through a sparkly curtain, and immediately feel transported to a different world. The room is a velvety type of blue, and the lighting is dimmed. The 15 jewels are arranged in such a way to tell some sort of story: some are grouped by where they were found (both inside one bag, for example) while others are arranged for their attributes. There are charm necklaces and one "this be your lucky star" necklace among the collection of radiant sapphires, pearls, diamonds, and gold and silver earrings and necklaces, brooches and hairpins. There is also a pocket watch from a second class passenger, which, in all honesty, is terribly displayed as the silver plaque behind it reflects the light in such a way to make the watch only visible by squinting.

Overall, the joyous lively music of the first section of the exhibit followed by the elegant, clean music of the "interior" of the Titanic marks a stark contrast to the feel of the exhibit, providing the visitor with an experience of actually being back in the early 1900s. The more quiet and secluded Jewels room transports the visitor to a completely different atmosphere, one of awe, wonder, and melancholy.

Up to this point, the exhibit has dealt mainly with the first class passengers and accommodations, showing artifacts, pictures, and quoted accounts, while briefly detailing the second class and third class accommodations with some quotations and stories of families who were in each of these classes.

I will continue my thoughts on the rest of the exhibition in my next post, which I promise to post as soon as I am able.

On the End of Term, Ethics Bowl, and Admissions.

Well folks, school is almost out, but you know what they say... it ain't over till it's over!

While I plan to continue posting on this blog in the future (who knew blogging could be so much fun?!) I likely won't be posting as often as I did this term.. but who knows?

As the semester is wrapping up, I thought I'd discuss a few things.
First, I'd like to reiterate how amazing this experience was for me. I have often found that I start a semester with no clue what the prof is talking about and soon find myself enthralled by the very things I didn't understand before. One time I started out with "what does he mean by Mycenaeans and Minoans, and when was the Bronze Age?!"(only to aspire later on that year to dedicate my studies to these very same concepts which had so puzzled me a few months before). This time, it started out with "what does she mean by "conventions" and "cultural heritage" (a question which I think we are ALL still asking ourselves...)?  What started out as a simple archaeology credit became my favourite class of the semester (but shh.. don't tell the other profs that!) and I rave to anyone who will listen about all that we discuss and the things we learn. It's safe to say that this class has been pivotal to my academic career, as it has made me aware of all the issues surrounding archaeology and cultural heritage, issues which I daresay are important to get acquainted with if one is thinking of a career in archaeology (or Museums, conservation, etc). I look forward to further developing my knowledge in this area in the coming years, and would like to acknowledge that none of this would have turned out the same had it not been for Dr. Greene and her enthusiasm for the subject, as well as her encouragement for us to think for ourselves on where we stand on these issues, instead of dictating what we ought to think.

Next on the Agenda: for my classmates and peers, Ethics Bowl anyone? I think it would definitely be more work, but would also definitely be worthwhile (and plus, Hawaii!). I think since a few of us have differing opinions on certain points, that would be a strength as we would bring more knowledge to the table!

And lastly for today, a little bit of controversy.
It is my firm belief that cultural heritage should belong 'to the world,' meaning that everyone who wants to should be able to see the artifacts they desire. While I am aware that this is ideal and in the real world doesn't really work, which is why ownership is usually given to nation-states, I do believe that Museums should be free. Why is it that only certain Museums are? I realize that this is also not the most practical in pecuniary terms, but if Museums have millions of dollars to acquire new antiquities, why can they not have free access to any one who may be willing? Imagine you don't have two extra cents, but are a huge history buff. Shouldn't you be able to see all these artifacts for free? Or if not free, perhaps cheaper? Some Museums are really great with their pricing, but others could cost families a month's worth of groceries.

 For example, if my extended family were to visit from Mexico and we took a trip to New York City, assuming we are eight people (my own family included) and only one of us is still a student, at $25 for the general admission, we'd be spending over 180 dollars to attend the MET for a few hours. That's more than some people pay for a month's rent in Mexico! 
The same should hold true for archaeological sites. If I travel all the way to Jordan, shouldn't I be able to visit Petra without going bankrupt? Let's say that this same family that just visited me then goes on to Jordan, because it is my cousin's dream to visit Petra. Admissions are 50 JD (approximately 70 USD) a person, which for a family of four amounts to 280 dollars. and that's only if they are to be in Jordan overnight. If they were going to Israel and went to Jordan only to see Petra, the entry fee is 90 JD (~125 USD) a person. that would amount to 500 dollars for one day (and that's just the entry fee, which does not include a guide or anything of the sort). The worst part of it all, is that only 10% of this fee goes towards the Petra Archaeological Park. Having actually been to Petra, I must state that the site is incredible, but I don't know if I would return for the price of 70 USD. My suggestion is to go on an archaeological excavation which will gain you free admission to the site.

I think these fees are a bit abusive, especially when Jordanians would pay only 1 JD for admission. These high fees assume that all visitors are wealthy and have mountains of money to spare, and this assumption may perhaps keep interested parties from visiting. I, for one, would be less likely to suggest to my cousins a trip to Petra (there are over 18 of us) than would perhaps suggest a visit to Rome, where the Flavian Amphitheater costs only an approximate 15 USD a person, and the famous forum is free to visit...

Book Review

           In his book Against Cultural Property: Archaeology, Heritage and Ownership, John Carman challenges the idea that material which comes to us from the past should be considered as ‘property.’ Carman successfully discusses the categories of illicit antiquities and the issues associated with ascribing value to them as if they were ‘property’ in his first chapter, stating his thesis that it is the notion of ownership itself which is the problem in the treatment of ancient remains. 

           The second chapter of the book, therefore, deals with property and property relations. He outlines the four types of property: private, common, state, and open access. While private property provides exclusive rights, common property provides shared rights; state property abrogates all rights to a national government, while open access, although the most loosely defined, ascribes the rights to all individuals, to use for any purpose. He concludes the chapter with a discussion of “propertyless culture,” in which he outlines Hyde’s study of the ‘gift’ and argues that the shift of an object from ‘commodity’ (thus property) to ‘gift’ shifts the object from a realm of use, to a realm of symbolic value. 

           In chapter three, Carman argues that archaeological objects are, and should be useless (in the sense of not needing to be used up as a commodity would be) and also priceless. They are heritage, and not a resource. He therefore argues that if they are used as a resource, they become property, whereas otherwise, they are simply priceless heritage. 

           In the next three chapters, Carman discusses archaeology as property, archaeology as common property, and archaeology as an open-access resource in an attempt to present some ideas as to how to proceed,  followed by a conclusion in the last chapter. 

           It is evident that Carman has experience with law, finance, and commercial administration, yet in his discussion of cultural heritage and archaeology, he only once, briefly, mentions ethics. His disregard of ethics in his discussion is a major shortcoming, as it would have perhaps been instrumental in arguing his position and providing new ideas for the treatment of cultural property. In his discussion of the different categories of illicit antiquities, a brief discussion of the UNESCO 1970 Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property would further inform the reader of the guidelines for what is considered illicit, and what is not. 

           Lastly, while the book part of a series meant to be accessible to students and scholars alike, Carman frequently talks about “AHM” and the management of AHM in the first two chapters, yet he never defines AHM. After conducting some research, I can reasonably assume that AHM stands for “Archaeological Heritage Management,” however, I could be completely mistaken as it is nowhere defined in the book. 

           Overall, the premise that the ownership of cultural objects is the major problem in the way we conceive, give value to, and treat cultural objects definitely has its merits, and is well argued in the book. Furthermore, Carman acknowledges that there is more than one solution, and personally lays out three possibilities. His major shortcomings are the overlooking of the ethical debate and how it ties into the laws and ideas of ‘property’ and the stakeholders in it, and the accessibility of the book as a single volume of its series. 

What is Archaeology and who does it?

Yesterday in class we discussed, among other things, what is archaeology, and who are archaeologists? Some of the questions include: can we call treasure hunters archaeologists? Is it the end-goal that matters, or the methods? 
I would say that it has to be a combination of factors. 

For clarification, the dictionary defines archaeology as "the study of human history and prehistory through the excavation of sites and the analysis of artifacts and other physical remains."
Entries from different dictionaries all include either the words "scientific" or "systematic" along with "study." 

So, are treasure hunters archaeologists? By these definitions, mostly, NO.
They do not study the history, they just dig it up. And I don't think they really analyze the artifacts they find, either. Sure, one could say that they excavate, but not all excavation is archaeology, and for that matter, not all archaeology is excavation. 

Now onto the second set of questions: Is it the end-goal or the methods which define archaeology, or how some may define "good archaeology" versus "bad archaeology"?
Again, it's a combination of the two. If you have excellent methods, but your goal is to sell the artifacts for profit, then I would say that it cannot be archaeology, because the goal of archaeology should be to to study or preserve, not to sell. If you have every good intention, but your methods are lacking, I would also say that it cannot be archaeology, as it would be neither scientific nor systematic. 
If, however, your end-goal and your methods are appropriate, yet you make a profit, that is still archaeology. Thus, Cultural Resource Management, or CRM, is still archaeology because although it does operate on a profit margin, it does not achieve this profit through the sale of artifacts, and the methods are sound. Furthermore, it preserves sites and or artifacts which may be in danger. 

While, as always, there will be scenarios that challenge the above, as well as possibly more questions than there are answers, for the present, I could live with myself as an archaeologist as long as I follow these two guidelines: follow sound methods of excavation, and excavate for the pursuit of knowledge.

And now, a silly cartoon...

More on Battles and Cultural Heritage

I read an article this morning about the unrest in Syria, home to some of the world's oldest artifacts, monuments, sites, and cities. It seems that amidst the unrest and battle, both sides have spoken openly about the need to protect antiquities and World Heritage Sites. 

Demonstrators in the ancient site of Palmyra

Ordinary civilians as well as Syrian Rebels had been risking their lives in order to document the damage being done to the monuments and the museums; now, Bashar Assad's regime has joined the effort, although each side in the conflict is blaming the other for the damage inflicted on all six of the World Heritage Sites in Syria. 

One could argue that civil strife leads to looting and destruction (as in the case of Iraq), and the only way to control or minimize this side effect of war is for the collective to be aware of the dangers that are being posed for ancient artifacts and sites. I would argue that Syria, in terms of acknowledging this, has thus far succeeded. Hopefully, this idea will continue to be carried out into actions, actions which will prevent further destruction of sites, preserve artifacts, and prevent looting.