We Blog Archaeological Ethics

Just a place to discuss different topics that involve the ideas of Archaeological Ethics.

[weblogarchaeologicalethics-blog]

The Future of Archaeology and this Blog

At the beginning of this semester I was assigned to write blog posts that related to the topics of the course. And so this blog was created with the sole purpose of trying to get through as many posts as I could about the course while maintaining my sanity balancing my other school work, family life, social life and the unexpected twists and turns that life generally hands us. Not to toot my own horn, I think I did a pretty good job. 

I talked about hollywood’s favourite archaeologist Indiana Jones twice, managed to stay civil when discussing ISIS and war issues, real life debates like the Nefertiti Bust, and the ideas on censorship, the ideas of using the past to your advantage and most notably brought in amazingly related if only by force ideas like Doctor Who, The Little Mermaid, USBs, giant nickels and even a waterfall and did this all while keeping archaeological ethics in mind. Ok so there was that one reblog I did about the egyptians but come on that was funny! 

The funny thing is that some could look at my blog and say that I learned nothing since I rarely used real life situations. Those people may be right but as I see it archaeology, especially the ethics surrounding it, is an ever evolving thing that needs new interpretations to help explain it.

I was asked to make this blog about what I think the future of archaeology will be. In all honesty I feel like more archaeological discoveries and findings will be less for academic purposes and more accessible to the public. As for ethics, they will still be taught, but more abstract examples can be used to teach them. A perfect example is that the first post I made about Indiana Jones. The only reason I had this idea is because it was based off of an assignment that I had done in class. The idea of taking things that are generally outside of the realm of archaeology and implementing the ideas into it is not uniquely mine and I hope that the trend continues into the future.  

As for this blog specifically, if I find something I feel relates to ethics and needs to be discussed in a different way then be assured that I will post it. However it will no longer be as frequent as I have been posting up to this point. 

So this isn’t really goodbye but the end of a chapter, a new page opening up in a book. The cool things about books are, no matter how many times you finish them and set them aside, you can always rediscover them and start all over again. 

Like always, I wanna know what the readers, if I have any, think so feel free to comment below and until then...

[weblogarchaeologicalethics-blog]

Darling its Better Down Where It’s Wetter....

Alright now for those of you who don’t know, the title is a reference to song called Under the Sea, from Disney’s the Little Mermaid. Now if you are confused as to why I used that as the title then let me enlighten you. 

See when it comes to Archaeology, Underwater has a lot less regulation which makes “better down where it is wetter” for antiquities to be found and brought to the surface. A great example of this is actually the Prince Eric statue from the movie. 

Such wonderful things around her, what more is she looking for? 

See Ariel (Red Haired Mermaid pictured with statue) finds this statue and decides to put it with her other collection of human artifacts. Now legally under the UN Law of the Sea and the UNESCO 2001 convention our fined finned friend would be in a fair bit of trouble seeing as she and her friends illegally obtained that statue from the shipwreck of Eric’s ship. Her father quickly takes care of this though after he finds his daughter’s grotto.  Leaving her quite upset and us with any of those artifacts that she had collected.

Tears indeed Ariel. Tears indeed. 

As we can see, having less strict laws under the sea can lead to catastrophic events that could cause us to lose the past forever. Should more strict laws be placed on the sea? Or should it always be better down where its wetter under the sea? 

I’ll leave that for you to decide! 

[weblogarchaeologicalethics-blog]

Censorship of the Past (Collectors POV)

Before you read this know that this was part of my speech for a debate I conducted into class. 

Hello everyone, my name is Annie Nonymous and I am the head of the Nonymous Family of collectors. I have a collection of tablets and coins that I feel deserve to be published. What is stopping me from getting my fabulous collection published? Well unfortunately, due to some policies in the archaeological world, it is impossible for me to publish my collection. According to The American School of Oriental Research, or ASOR for short, since the tablets my father had spent his life collecting do not have archaeological provenience and because he started collecting them after 1972 the tablets can’t be published. As for the coins since my coins are rusted or dented and it is not possible to see where they are from, regulations state I can’t publish those either. This is blatant censorship of the past and I will not stand for it. Now before anyone says it, I know that I could only publish part of the collection, the parts that would fall under the rules that are in place. However I feel it would take away from the hard work of my father and I, along with value of this family collection.  To publish only part of the collection would be agreeing with these regulations and with the idea that censoring parts of the past is an acceptable practice. By taking objects out of their historical and cultural context, some believe that this also takes away their value. This notion forgets that for many years before the rules and regulations for cuneiform tablets and coins came into effect, that many articles were not only able to be published that contained items that did not have provenience, but because of those articles the items were able to be researched and led to discoveries in the archaeological world.  This is a serious suppression of knowledge, as these regulations are in place in many places throughout the world causing the next generation not to be able to learn about all the beauty and knowledge the past has to offer. Do we really want to deny the advancement of knowledge due to not being able to precisely place where something belongs? Keeping the objects without provenience out of publications is an irrational and unintelligent practice that is detrimental to the intelligence of the world. Who has the right to deny the spread of information just because it doesn’t fall into specific guidelines? All I want is to share the knowledge that these artifacts in my family’s collection could give to the world. What is so wrong with that?

Like always discuss below what you think! 

[weblogarchaeologicalethics-blog]

War and Archaeology

War is a topic that can make a lot of people uncomfortable if they don’t know a lot about what is going on. If you do not wish to read about this topic I completely understand!

War is something that always can bring out controversy. No matter in what context you speak of it, there is always a chance for a debate to be sparked.  This time that debate is over whether or not objects or sites of Archaeological significance can and should be protected in times of war. 

This, unfortunately, is a real image of a bomb being set off in the ancient city of Palmyra. The terrorist group know as ISIS captured this photo as they destroyed this old settlement of Rome. 

This is another photo captured by ISIS. This time they are destroying the artifacts and statues in the Mosul museum located in Al Jamhuriya, Mosul, Iraq. These statues and artifacts reflected the history of the people of the Middle East. 

The world is and has been trying to stop ISIS from creating new terrorist targets, and so it has is considered a war on ISIS. So wasn’t there a way to stop the destruction show above from happening in the first place? Shouldn’t there be laws in place that can protect sites like these from the devastating destruction of war? 

While there are conventions set up like the Geneva convention and Hague convention (Specifically the one signed in 1954), there is a problem with them. They are not mandatory for a country to sign up on to them and abide by them. These laws, and ones like them, are created with good intentions to protect the past but unfortunately are not often put into action. 

ISIS is a terrorist group that can unfortunately do more than just destroy the past. Recent and past events that have been confirmed as the work of ISIS (even though ISIS claims they have done more), have left the death toll at a disgustingly large number. It is here where the question comes up in my mind, is anything more important than protecting lives during times of war? And with that question, I feel like I’ve gotten my answer to why the laws to protect the past aren’t as enforced as they could be. 

Thanks for reading this, I know it might have been a difficult thing to do so I truly appreciate it. If you have any feedback on this topic, please keep the comments coming. 

[weblogarchaeologicalethics-blog]

Proving what you want to find using the Past

This is a slight continuation of my ideas from a previous post so if you haven’t please check it out!! Also I am going to be talking about Doctor who in this post, so if you have no idea what I’m talking about please click here. 

I am a big fan of the television show Doctor Who and that show often causes me to get into debates with people about where I think the show should go. One of the most common debates I have is whether the Doctor, who is currently being played by Peter Capaldi, should eventually be played by a woman. 

This is Peter Capaldi, if you needed a photo reference. Also cause I wanted to post a picture in this blog to make up for last time.

Now I find myself saying that it shouldn’t matter whether or not the Doctor is played by a woman since there have been so many strong female characters in the past that have represented the gender well. I bring up the charisma and sass of Donna Noble, the heart and bravery of Martha Jones, and the strength and determination of River Song, along with countless others, all as examples as to why it is not necessary for the Doctor to be female. However it is for these very same reasons that the people I talk to say that the Doctor should be female, stating that if this is what they can do with companion characters then making a main character like this shouldn’t be hard. 

This got me questioning something that was then conveniently enough for this blog post brought up in my archaeological ethics class. How can two opposite opinions use the same arguments and make them work for both sides? It seems that this practice is something that happens in actual archaeological research.

For example sake, lets say someone found a female skeleton in Jerusalem. This skeleton happened to be located in the same city that Mary Magdalene was supposed to have lived in according to the Christian bible. Now a Christian archaeologist might be more inclined to see this find as the remains of Mary Magdalene, while an archaeologist who is not of the Christian faith might not see such a connection. Both would use the placement of the bones, the place in which they were found and the dating of the bones themselves. Both archaeologist can use this information to prove this point and nothing would be considered falsified. 

Why? Why is this ok? In both of the examples people twist the ideas to reflect the argument they want to make. Wait I’m getting to my point please just...

I’m sorry I couldn’t help myself there... BACK TO MY POINT!

“There will always be bias when it comes to history, or any story for that matter, and if you find a way to take advantage of it then go for it.” This is a quote by me, last post when I was talking about how the past can be used to think about the future. Perhaps I was on to something bigger than what I originally thought. Whether you are discussing bones that are found on an archaeological site or what gender the main character of the show should be played by, opinions and statements can always be twisted to fit one side or the other. 

So what do you think about this idea of ideas being shared among both sides of an argument? Let me know in the comments and continue this discussion. 

[1e3no]

[new-age-conservative-deactivate]

Never thought I’d see an Akhenaten joke…

[exixiii-deactivated20180208]

Guess his idea wasn’t given Aten out of ten

[rainnecassidy]

SCREAMING

[galren]

@agentsamortuus

[agentsama]

This continues to slay me

[weblogarchaeologicalethics-blog]

Ok this has nothing to do with my blog post that I’m writing today but I had to share it cause its brilliant! 

[weblogarchaeologicalethics-blog]

Using the Past to Think about the Future

“We are made wise not by the recollection of our past, but by the responsibility for our future.” 

This is a quote that, from the information I could find on the internet, George Bernard Shaw had said regarding the past. I want to keep this quote in mind when saying what I want to say because I feel like it is a great transition into the topic of using the past to think about the future. 

Something I learned about recently in my archaeological ethics class is this idea that the past can be twisted and used to represent the future. The example I was given in class was that during the rise of Italian Fascism, the Roman Empire would use to help promote the fascist ideas of Benito Mussolini. This idea surprised me because I couldn’t see how this could have possibly happened as the two seemed so different. However I soon realized that the point of this wasn’t that the two were the same is how the story was spun.

See the Fascist party of Rome would restore old monuments from the Augustan Era, like the Ara Pacis, to support the ideals of taking back Rome for the Italians. Another interesting propaganda tactic was the celebration of Augustus’ 2000th birthday. What these too tactics did was not only restore the old and ancient Roman traditions, but also a connection was made between Augustus and Mussolini. With this connection made Mussolini could then use this connection to influence the Ancient Roman aspect, which was still respected throughout Italy at the time. 

Looking at this there is a clear bias, but this is just one example right? This must be the only example of something like this happening, right? Well if you hadn’t guess yet, this isn’t the only time that something like this has happened. There is a fantastic article on how the Nazi’s used historical archaeology as propaganda for the war. I have included that link here if you would like more information on that. 

I started this post with a quote that not only reminds us that the past must be remembered but also that the future is our responsibility to enhance in whatever way we see fit. As much as it pains me to say this if using the past as an enhancer to your future, no matter what the future you want is, can help you I’d say go for it. There will always be bias when it comes to history, or any story for that matter, and if you find a way to take advantage of it then go for it.

I know this was a very text heavy post ad I’m sorry about that but it is kinda hard to find pictures for this topic, unless I wanted to use Nazi and Mussolini pictures but I didn’t really feel like that was the main point. Hopefully my next topic is still filled with discussion topics but also able to break it up with pictures.

So what do you think about this idea of using the past to enhance the future? Let me know in the comments and continue this discussion.

[weblogarchaeologicalethics-blog]

The Nefertiti Bust Debate

“

This is the Nefertiti Bust and this post will be diving into the debate of where it truly belongs, Egypt or, where it currently is, in Berlin, Germany. If you would like to learn more about the Nefertiti Bust itself please click here. 

Now outside of the amazing art work and clear historical value behind this amazing bust, there is a debate that has people confused where this artifact truly belongs. 

 Now the first thing we have to look at when looking at this debate is where the bust was place after it was found. Well since this bust was found, by a German financed excavation at Amarna, it has been in the possession of Germany. 

While in Germany it has been displayed in many museums which has let the artifact be shown to the world. Also the bust has been in the possession of Germany since the early 1900s. The reason it has been with Germany for so long is because when the treasures of Amarna were divided, the bust went to the man who financed the excavation. He took great care of the bust before giving it to the museums but there is plenty of controversy as to what right he had to the bust in the first place. 

However the country of origin Egypt definitely has some rights to the object as well. Not only was the bust made in Egypt, but Nefertiti is a very important figure in Egypt. She was the wife of the pharaoh Akhenaten, who was famous for trying to move the capital of Egypt to Amarna, and the mother of Tutankhamun, the boy pharaoh who did not last long on the throne of Egypt. Nefertiti is seen as a possible pharaoh herself, after her husband died and before her son took over the throne, and whose name means “The beauty has come.”. Being such a symbol for the women of Egypt and the bust itself being a fantastic piece of Egyptian art, the Nefertiti bust seems to belong back there. Doesn’t it? 

Well honestly there is no clear answer to this yet as this debate is still on going. Currently the bust is still in Berlin, where it is available to view in person. Whether or not the bust will move back to Egypt is unknown, but who knows what the future could hold for this fantastic piece of history. 

What do you think? Who should get the bust Egypt or Germany? Let me know in the comments below and keep the conversation going! 

[weblogarchaeologicalethics-blog]

Indiana Jones: The Collector?

Alright time to have some people hate me, but lest try not to kill each other in comments ok? Pretty please?

A few weeks back I made a post about Indiana Jones. That post focused on whether everyone’s favourite archaeologist Indy was even a good archaeologist at all. In that post I make mention that a negative point against Indy is that he displays the artifacts he found on his desk for only a select group of people to see. Now that I have looked into collectors, I want to see if this idea could be applied here. What I am suggesting is that Indy could also be consider a collector of antiquities along with being an archaeologist. 

Okay, okay don’t give me that look, Indy! Let me state my facts and ideas and maybe you will understand where I am coming from.   

Indiana Jones is known for going on fantastic trips and bringing the artifacts he finds back to the university to so they can be preserved for the advancement of knowledge. Now to me when I look at Indy in that light I see him almost like a collector who may not have the money to keep the objects himself. Think about it, he clearly loves the past enough to go out and find these objects that could be not only important to history but potentially could fall into the wrong hands, he takes the time to try and figure out how the university could use them so his artifacts can be displayed and he works with other collectors in order to achieve his goals.  

Yes, most collectors have money to hold their own private collections and look like our friend here, Walter Donovan, who was a collector who worked with Indy in the Last Crusade. 

Now that is what a collector should look like right? Fancy and proper with his antiquities displayed in his home and not at a place of learning. But I remind you of a scene in Raiders of the Lost Ark, where we see inside Indy’s home. What do we see? 

ANTIQUITIES, ANTIQUITIES EVERYWHERE! Even again in the horrible fourth movie Kingdom of the Crystal Skull we get a glimpse into his home, more specifically his living room, and what do we find? 

If you said antiquities you would be right! Clearly Indy doesn’t give everything to the museum like we are lead to believe because of the things we can see in his home. Does this make Indy a collector? Should we even hate him for it? I’ll leave that for you to comment about below! 

[weblogarchaeologicalethics-blog]

Using strange examples to explain things about Cultural Property

Alright I have to give a shout-out to indianajane101 who used a similar example like this in class. Go check her out if you haven’t yet!

Could people know what a USB was without a computer nearby? Now when you see this question you might be thinking that I have lost my mind because most people know what a USB is. However let us imagine a world in the distant future where USBs are things of the past, and finding one is a archaeological discovery. But if someone from the future were to look at this item would they know what it is without the proper provenience? Are you confused? Let me explain.

Provenience is where, the USB in our example, is found in the archaeological site. For example if archaeologists found the USB in a room where there was also computers, they would be more likely to associate it with the computers. However if it was found in the bathroom it might not be as easily recognized as a USB. 

Lets look at a USB. 

Alright so archaeologist find this and have to figure out what it is, what it does and how it can relate to the history of man kind. 

Once they do decide this then they would try to figure out from which country this object is from. Now with the USB example it might be too hard to use for this so we’ll use this instead.  

This is a giant Canadian nickel located in Sudbury, Ontario, Canada. Now Canada, in the distant future where people don’t know what USBs are, could say that this is a part of their cultural property based on the provenience and Article 1 of the UNESCO 1970 convention. The part of this article that they could use would be the part relating to coins, since this is in fact a perfect replica of a 1950′s era Canadian nickel. 

Cultural Property can be some tricky business to tackle but once you add something funny to it, its as easy as finding a picture of a giant Canadian nickel. 

[weblogarchaeologicalethics-blog]

In 1000 Years, Could Niagara Falls Become a World Heritage Site?

Disclaimer: Keep in mind that this post, while completely hypothetical in scenario will be using real guidelines that are in place for the classification of World Heritage sites. If you would like to learn more about the guidelines that help choose World Heritage sites please take a look at this link: http://whc.unesco.org/en/criteria/ . 

This is a somewhat current picture of Niagara Falls. Now imagine in 1000 years that Niagara Falls has been abandoned and future archaeologists are looking at this place as a site. Is there a way that this place could be considered a World Heritage site? Using the UNESCO World Heritage guidelines, let’s try to find out! 

A World Heritage site, for those who want a quick definition, is something natural or man-made that has been deemed important enough to the history of the world for special protection and continued research.

The obvious thing to look at first are the Falls themselves. One guideline that would work in favour of the Falls would be the one that concerns natural beauty. Anyone who has seen these falls in person or even in a picture like the one above can see that Niagara Falls is a beautiful, natural landmark. Unfortunately for the actual Falls themselves this is the only guideline that would apply. But that doesn’t mean we can’t protect it. By lumping it in with the buildings that surround the Falls, they might have a chance to become a World Heritage site.

Now the question becomes what are the current function of the buildings that surround Niagara Falls? Well in the picture above we can see not only a large building of some sort but also what looks like a part of a transit system. Since the transit system can be seen here, we have evidence for some technology that would illustrate a stage in human history where buses were used to get around. This is something that is covered under the guidelines. Also because of the close proximity of the building to the Falls, some could argue that there is clear human interaction with the environment. Looking into the Falls, future scientist or archaeologist could discover whether or not irreversible change happened to the Falls because of the human interaction with it. Why does this matter? Well this is the criteria of yet another guideline that could be used in favour of making this place into a World Heritage site.   

Now I know there are many more buildings and possibly many other facts about the culture of Niagara Falls or how the much larger city surrounding this area comes into play, so feel free to continue the conversation and make the decision for yourself. Personally if I had a say in 1000 years on this situation, I would say yes to making it a World Heritage site and it would honestly just be for the natural beauty alone. Do you agree or disagree? 

[weblogarchaeologicalethics-blog]

Indiana Jones and the Archaeological Debate

For those of you who have no idea who Indiana Jones is and would like more information on the character and movie franchise please click these links: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indiana_Jones, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indiana_Jones_(franchise).

Alright, now that you have some background information, it is time to figure out if Indiana Jones is truly a good Archaeologist. Now I mainly want to focus on the very first scene in Raiders of the Lost Ark, because it the first movie in the series and the one scene that sets up how Indy will act in the future adventures. First lets get all the negative points out of the way. 

Looking into how Indy treats the temple where the golden idol is found, we can instantly see that he not only has no respect for the place but clearly didn’t do enough research on the place before going there. If the proper research was done not only would Indy have had a better idea about how to get past the booby traps, but also would have realized that a sack of sand would not suffice to the weight of the idol. He also would have known that if he took the idol, the temple would be destroyed forever, causing a piece of cultural and world history to be lost forever. Once we meet the French archaeologist, Rene Belloq, we can clearly see that Indy not only was unprepared but couldn’t work with the local natives because he did not speak their language, something he could have learned if he spent more time studying and less time exploring. Once back in the classroom, we can see that Indy proudly displays his artifacts on his desk, limiting the viewing of them to only a select group of people.  

Now on to the good. We can instantly tell by watching this scene that Indy pays attention to detail, whether its figuring out the traps in the temple or noticing that one of his students has “Love You” written on her eyelids. He is also a compassionate person to work with, looking out for the well being of the people he travels with even if they are not the most honest people. This is in stark contrast to Belloq who is clearly using the natives to get what he wants, not caring what would happen to them in the process. Belloq’s presence actually brings up a great point. While in the negative points, it was brought up that Indy didn’t do research before heading out for the golden idol. We can see now that Belloq was on his tail and we later find out that Belloq is working for the Nazis. So would you really say Indy did a bad thing by trying to prevent the Nazi’s from getting their hands on the idol? 

These are just some of my thoughts on the subject, if you want to continue the conversation, feel free to reblog or tag me in your posts!