The May 21st Looting Matters post refers to a Leon Levy Foundation "early February 2010" gathering of "distinguished archaeologists, museum directors, and curators from around the world" on "how best to make available the trove of unpublished information from important ancient world sites excavated under “partage” agreements." "Partage" is the system "through which western universities and museums worked in concert with host countries on digs, then divided the discoveries..."
According to the photo caption from the Foundation web site, the attendees were "Top Row: Richard Hodges, Timothy Potts, Dorothea Arnold, Jean-Francois Jarrige, Sebastian Heath, Sergey Minyaev. Seated: Philippe de Montebello, Brian Rose, Shelby White, Sharon Herbert."
This photograph raises many questions from different angles. In this post, we will discuss one of these issues: The choice of participants.
1) It appears that all the attendees--at least all those who had their photograph taken--either dig in source countries, collect objects from source countries, or display them in western museums. Or all of the above. In other words, these are visitors to "important ancient world sites".
What about the hosts? If "partage" is indeed a partnership between hosts and visitors, an act of sharing, then why were representatives from the other side--the host side with the "important ancient world sites"--absent from this discussion? Were they not invited? Were they invited but did not attend? Did they attend but did not have their photograph taken? Surely it would be informative (and collaborative) to hear from those who attended the recent Cairo Conference what their views of "partage" might be.
2) Why did "distinguished archaeologists, museum directors, and curators from around the world" not include the Americas or the African continent? Or does "the ancient world" not include these parts? If so, how do the host countries feel about this?
While we look forward to the findings of this Leon Levy Foundation meeting of the experts, SAFECORNER urges the Foundation to consider a better represented conference. Surely the Leon Levy Foundation could attempt a true sharing of the views from both visitors and hosts of the ancient world.
Perhaps then, true discussion can begin about how information collected under "partage" should be disseminated.
Photo: The Leon Levy Foundation
Sphere: Related Content
Posts
8 comments:
A couple of things here:
Any chance that partage agreements were limited to European and middle-eatern sites?
Is it clear for what reasons these people were invited? For example, Rose is president of the AIA; Heath doesn't run an excavation himself, but has been a leader in things digital in the world of classical and near-eastern archaeology; Herbert is associated with the University of Michigan, which may be one of the universities that had such agreements. (Just speculating on these)
As for the absence of "hosts," if the unpublished material is mainly being held in the collections or libraries of American institutions, does it not make sense to create a group that has experience with them? Also, it's one meeting, perhaps the first. Is it unreasonable to start with people "in the neighborhood"?
You make some good points, John. But if partage agreements were limited to European and middleastern sites, then why were two Asian experts at the meeting? According to my internet search, Jean-Francois Jarrige and Sergey Minyaev are Asian specialists, do they have experience or expertise with European and middleastern sites too? Clearly they were there because they have been beneficiaries of partake themselves. By the way, these two are from France and Russia, hardly "in the neighborhood", wouldn't you say? Unless I misunderstood what you mean by neighborhood.
What Safecorner has not asked is the bigger question: what is the AIA president grinning from ear to ear about, flanked between the 2 most publicized offenders of archaeology in recent memory? Sebastian Heath is supposed to be AIA's VP of Professional Responsibilities. Huh? I am actually surprised that officers of such a reputable established organization don't realize how such a photo op can be perceived, let alone participate in more business as usual that only helps the other side.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but it's OK to say no to a PR stint, even if you've been invited by Shelby White.
I am puzzled as the rest of you what this group of people gathered to discuss and why no representatives of the host nations of these "partnerships" were represented. It seems to me for example that one cannot write up Winlock's work for the Met at Thebes (D. Arnold at the meeting) in isolation from the Egyptian authorities for example. [BTW in Africa, not "Middle East"]. These are the people that "have experience" with the material, the records and the stuff that was not partaged away from the same projects.
I suggest that a useful first step would be to produce a full list of what quantities of material of what type are held outside the host countries in the form of "partaged" artefacts, samples and records, and where they are now, and what has been done with them since they left the country of origin. But for that you do not need a Levy Foundation, you need proper cataloguing in the recipient collections. Let us see how many of those institutions can provide that information at the touch of a button, despite sitting on this material for many decades.
John Muccigrosso has it pretty much spot-on in terms of my participation. The meeting was mainly retrospective: how can museums efficiently publish objects acquired via decades-old excavations. I avoid the term "partage" to the extent that one is talking about ways forward. To put it more simply: I don't think it is a way forward. As a description of what happened in the past, "partage" still sounds archaic and "colonial", but I guess that's the point.
And in terms of the larger issues involved in attending the meeting: I'll talk to just about anybody and, yes, it was clear that all concerned parties need to be involved if the conversation is to move forward. But I do not know what will happen. I am an archaeologist so I recognize the need to publish all objects from an excavation, regardless of which museum holds them now. Also, I am an archaeologists so I recognize the ethical dimension of all my work, particularly as it involves materials that were removed far from their original context.
I appreciate your candor, Sebastian. I don't mean any disrespect, in fact I think archaeologists do very important work. I even understand your "I'll talk to just about anybody" but why engage in "retrospective" talk that you don't even know where it's going, when you are in a position to actually make real something happen? I think Paul Barford's thoughtful suggestion sounds like a wonderful first step. I think AIA members would expect as much. Action, not talk, speaks much louder.
David,
Agreed. It's great that the Internet has worked its magic so that the conversation has a public manifestation where all can have input. That is a good way to figure out where to go. I don't mean to put that in total opposition to your point about not engaging in conversations without knowing where they are going. I do think that there is a role for the "open ended" when starting such things.
Openness makes for a good process.
Readers may be interested to read the short note I sent to Portable Antiquity Collecting and Heritage Issues.
http://paul-barford.blogspot.com
Kwame Opoku.
A more direct link to Dr. Opoku's comment is here.
Post a Comment