The debate over cultural properties is one that has continued since the beginning of archaeological discovery. Who owns the past, or has the right to preserve cultural remains, are questions that drive this debate and cause controversy among societies. (Messenger) The way that cultural artifacts are obtained have the most uproar among the archaeological society. Collectors and looters are the source of this issue and have been discredited by many archaeological societies.
Modern societies and governments have now put more focus on the preservation of cultural property in each region. For example, states in America have a specific person or company in charge of archaeological matters and university anthropology programs have grown. (Messenger) This makes the ethical preservation of cultural artifacts a lot easier because there is a system in place. The idea of artifacts being intellectual property and essential to piecing together the past
…show more content…
From a survey taken in class it has been proven that most people do believe in the importance of preserving cultural artifacts and ancient sites. 46 out of the 47 students in the survey answered “yes” when asked if cultural sites are incredibly important. 46 out of 47 students also agreed that modern societies should preserve ancient culture sites. The survey gave evidence towards society not agreeing with the actions of looters. 44 out of 46 students answered that it was wrong to steal artifacts. In regards to the actions of collectors, the students believed that they were fine. 34/47 students answered that there is nothing wrong with the buying and selling of artifacts. With the results collected, it can be said that a society feels a need to protect cultural objects from losing their importance. Those artifacts are the same ones that built the knowledge of the past and have created a sense of nationalism among
To identify the specific type, functions and time period of the artifacts, various archaeology books, reports, and journal were referred. The interpretation was then conducted by dividing the artifacts into different area on the map and investigating their relationships.
The Royal Alberta Museum holds a sacred object of the First Nations groups of Alberta and Saskatchewan, the Manitou Stone. This sacred object has a vast history to the Aboriginals but also has much controversy that surrounds it. Hundreds of years ago the object was removed from its original spot and was moved back and forth across the Canada, eventually ending up in Edmonton at the Royal Alberta Museum. This sacred object was said to have many powers for the First Nations people and when it was taken it brought great hardship to the First Nations groups that believed in the power of the Manitou Stone. This is only the beginning of the issues that surround this sacred object. Many different Aboriginal groups claim to own the piece but no decision has been made as to where the object should be placed. With the Manitou Stone now in the Royal Alberta Museum issues arise about the proper housing of the item and whether or not it should be retained in a museum or if it should be on First Nations land. Where the Manitou Stone is placed brings many complications and struggles for the Aboriginal people that claim ownership of the sacred object. When researching this object I was initially unaware of the significance that a museum could have to groups of people and the struggles that this could bring to these groups. This paper will explore the significance of the stone, the various viewpoints on why the object was moved originally from Iron Creek, who claims ownership to the object, and whether or not a museum is the proper place for sacred objects like the Manitou Stone to be kept.
There has been a lot of controversy regarding human remains and the field of archaeology for some time. The Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA) protect the Native American’s rights over their human remains and cultural items. Proposed by the Morris Udall, former Congress Member for Arizona second District, NAGPRA was passed by the Congress in November 1990. The congress’ intention was to facilitate the repatriation of the Native Americans skeleton and cultural remains that were held in museums and federal agencies. In compliance with the Act, anthropologists returned several skeletal remains that were conserved in their study laboratories and museums to the respective Native tribes. In 1998, for example, the University of Nebraska repatriated over 1702 cultural artifacts to the affiliated Native Americans (Niesel 1). This was a significant blow to the scientific and anthropology studies as it marked the loss of necessary resources in unraveling the development of the human being.
If you ask the majority of citizens in the United States about their opinion on the validity of geography-based cultural heritage claims, chances are they will either look at you like you are crazy or dive into an explanation about the most recent show they saw on the history channel about the repatriation of the Kennewick Man. Like any other topic, a person’s scope of knowledge in regards to archaeology is limited to the material that they have been exposed to. In today’s society, the majority of this information is gleaned from popular media sources such as National Geographic, the History Channel, Wikipedia, and other mainstream “educational” resources. Although very popular, these resources often offer interpretations that sensationalize and misrepresent archaeological data. The media is the main conduit of educational information and therefore, has a societal obligation to accurately portray archaeological findings and data.
What is an artifact? According to the dictionary, an artifact is “something made or given shape by man, such as a tool or a work of art, especially an object of archaeological interest” ("The Definition of Artifact"). In archaeology, the word “artifact” defines an object recovered by archaeological attempt, which might have a cultural attention. In the same way, the article “The Life of An Artifact” written by Michael Shanks mainly discusses some of the key points of interpretive archaeology and the relations between social sciences and material culture. The author believes that material culture plays an active role in society, and that the society is built upon the presence of artifacts. He emphasizes that “artifacts
In this manner, western cultures command great power by being able to represent their own heritage as a higher ranking than the “primitive” art of Third World nations that is often exhibited: “It also means the power to define and rank people, to declare some as having a greater share than others in the community’s common heritage—in its very identity” (Duncan 102). These are the important findings of Duncan’s (1991) analysis of cultural imperialism, which I agree with in terms of the greater influence of American and European museums to ritualize their status as a first world modern nation. More so, American/European museums get greater funding to superimpose their culture over museums in third world countries, which defines the overt power of the museum as a “temple” for first world art. These are important aspects of Duncan’s view that the disproportionate presence of western art throughout the world is based on a primarily imperialistic notion of cultural superiority in the presentation of American and European heritage on a global scale. In my opinion, I feel that western museums deliberately impose their cultural values in terms of “modernity” as a means of ranking themselves above lesser nations. Certainly, the increasing popularity of “primitive”
The Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act established Indian nations as the owners of Native American cultural objects, including human remains, which were found on Federal land. It requires that the American Indians provide substantial amounts of information to validate their claims. However, only federally recognized tribes are recognized under this act, so if you are an unrecognized tribe good luck claiming anything that belongs to you. After this, the existing anthropological literature will be consulted. In some instances, Indians will disagree with the literature and take steps to correct it. Indians are also likely to provide additional information that had not yet been documented. The interpretations will be written from the perspective of the claiming tribe, how they view the world, and their perception of significance of objects in religious ceremonial rites. While some might raise the question of scientific objectivity, no one will deny that this perspective had often been lacking in the literature. These interpretations are bound to bring about new insights which will challenge earlier assumptions (5).
For years on end, countries have been fighting with big museums from other countries for ancient artifacts that belong to the original countries. The argument of whether or not the museums should be able to keep them still remains. It is the right of the country to have their own artifacts. It is imperative for countries to be able showcase their historical artifacts, therefor museums should return them to their rightful owners.
SHA, and other archaeological societies, institutions, scholars and archaeologists find it hard to conduct or even to get involved in such shows that are produced for the entertaining of fans and also for gaining revenue. The Society for American Archaeology (SAA) is working on clearing-house project that will help in building public awareness about archaeology and the way it is practiced, therefore the project is seeking input from professionals and the interested public, in order to share and contribute information and
Through out the years we have seen numerous changes and evolution in the theories that make up archaeology. Archaeology was initially seen as a type of history or a historical study it focused mainly on the explication of the past, as well as gathering data to set chronologies. However many archaeologists feel that archaeology should focus on the explanation of the past rather than the explication of it. The first transformation that was documented produced “Processual Archaeology” it evolved from the old historical and antiquarian ways. Processual Archaeology was developed as a science, but was still deemed as inadequate to archaeologists in the 1990's. Post processual archaeology is the result of the criticism that processual archaeology has faced. It emphasizes the subjectivity of archaeological interpretations. Processual archaeologists however believed heavily on the scientific method therefore the data the derived was almost always objective. There is an obvious clash between these two schools of thought, one being subjective the other being objective, it's no wonder why there is a discrepancy between concepts such as culture. This research paper aims to examine in detail, Lewis Binford and the processual method of culture construction and compare it with Ian Hodder and the post processual method. By doing so I expect to find a discrepancy between their concepts of culture and how but more importantly why this discrepancy exists.
Imagine that one piece of history that is taken from a town. This piece of history tells l people how this town was built and all the important people that were apart of the community. “Returning Antiquities to Their Countries of Origin” by Joyce Mortimer can many people about how objects are getting taken from Museums. They should be returned immediately. There are so many artifacts out there that could be so important to people, and if someone can just imagine what it would feel to have one of the most important object taken from a museum and to be never returned again. Many people enjoy seeing these objects so why are they being taken?
...troversy as all countries have lost, to a great or lesser extent, treasures of national renown and significance over time. Wars, theft, treasure seeking, changing boundaries and migration have all in some way contributed to this diaspora of art. There is clear evidence that the historic placing of objects in locations remote from their origin has on occasion afforded protection and preservation, The Elgin Marbles in The British Museum being a case in point. However, given the overarching principle of self determination it is difficult to argue that serendipitous historic placement is sufficient reason for items of true national heritage to be kept indefinitely. A world-wide system of touring exhibitions and cultural exchange, with context being provided by the originating society may provide the natural progression to the accessible widening of people’s experiences.
Finding out about antiques, relics, and customs through narrating has formed who I am. These three things have inhabited of all societies to realize who they are. Family customs demonstrate how individuals experience their lives and cooperate with others. They additionally indicate how individuals respond when a relative weds into a group of an alternate ethnic foundation. Relics are great cases of material things that can instruct about one 's family history. Antiquities show who individuals are. This is valid for every single ethnic foundation.
In “Whose Culture Is It, Anyway? ”, Kwame Anthony Appiah begins by pointing out that some of the museums of the world, particularly in the West, have large collections of artefacts and objects which were robbed from developing and poor countries. He then raises a question: who owns these cultural patrimony and properties? Our first answer may be that since they make up the cultural heritage of a people, they belong to the people and culture from whom they were taken. Appiah has doubt about this and argues that if some cultural artefacts are potentially valuable to all human beings, they should belong to all of humanity. He thinks that when they make contribution to world culture, they should be protected by being made available to those who would benefit from experiencing them and put into trusteeship of humanity.
Archaeologists are scattered across the gamut. Considering knowledge of human past is valuable to numerous academic disciplines. Varieties of archaeological application include: cultural resource management, heritage conservation, historic preservation,