Theory is something that hurts my head – and I know I am not alone. However, some find it intensely fascinating. For those who like the intellectual debates, this post is for you…
This week in our Themes, Thoughts, and Theory of World Archaeology seminar we discussed the motives of archaeologists and antiquarians of the 19th century. As some of you know, there are two ways to look at the history of archaeology (which is basically what this class is about): study the history of archaeological discoveries or study the history of archaeological thought.
I find the study of the archaeological discoveries to be immensely interesting but care drastically less about what the archaeologists thought they were doing and why. Now if you were going to talk to me about archaeological method and theories surrounding the uncovering of the ancient past you would find me a keen listener. But our class really seems to be bordering on an exercise in psychology (a topic that I have far less interest in – mostly because I don’t think people generally know why they do things. I feel that people just act without much thought to why – and I don’t think those early “diggers” were much different).
So in class we discussed the failure of the antiquarians verses the success of the archaeologists. Antiquarians are those people who treasure hunt. They search for objects from the past. Today we find them holding metal detectors combing the beaches and fields of the earth for any metal object they might find. Some want them for curiosity reasons. Some want them for monetary benefit. But none of them care at all the context in which they find them or the history surrounding them (except that it benefits one of the aforementioned motives). In the 19th century antiquarians failed not because of their love of the past but due to their tendency toward dishonesty or intellectual blindness fearing that their belief in the Bible (read “origins”) might be “proved” to be false. Archaeologists, on the other hand, care about the context that objects are found almost as much (sometimes more) than the objects themselves. Archaeologists succeed (to some degree) because of the unity of approach in the methods of typology, stratigraphy, and technology.
However, there was a problem in the 19th century. That problem centered around Imperialism. Thinking mostly about Egyptian Archaeology – England and France were the two nations at the front of this endeavor. There is a thought that the work they did either as antiquarians or as archaeologists was done for imperialistic reasons. Naturally there is proof of this (Bruce Trigger seems to have the best book on the topic called “A History of Archaeology”). There was a tendency to collect items for museums outside of the nations they were collected in (in this case Egypt) and to hold back and shun local archaeologists.
Today, all motives of all archaeologists are now in question. Those from their native land digging in their native land to uncover their native heritage are said to have Nationalistic motives. These motives tend to hailed and applauded. But what about a person like me? I am not from Egypt (in fact, even though I am an American I am not really from America either as my ancestors come from Norway). My interest in Egypt drives me to want to dig in Egypt and work in Egyptology. But does that make me Imperialistic? I was told in class that to some degree it does.
And therein lies the problem of all of this. I am not Imperialistic. I am just interested in discovering as much about the ancient Egyptians as I can. I do not want to conquer ancient or modern Egyptians. I think anyone from any country should have the right – based on being a human – to discover as much as possible about ancient humanity. I agree that that should include the local Egyptian, but doesn’t necessarily mean that an Egyptian must be interested in ancient Egypt. If a modern Egyptian wants to dig in England or America – “good on him” (or for those from the US “good for him” – and for those who are offended I didn’t say her – “good for/on her”). I think anyone, regardless of race, religion, gender, or class should be able to study anything they feel drawn to. The only qualification is education.
That is where I feel we should put more of our effort in. Everyone on earth should have the freedom to study and learn if they so desire. My problem is in the cost and availability of education. Professors, Teachers, Tutors, etc, should be among the highest paid people on the planet.
As for conquering…I would rather we didn’t and left that to the ancients.
No comments:
Post a Comment