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...