Issue: Jehoash Inscription

When an ancient artifact is found, whether within its original context or not, its interpretation is very easily be influenced by bias. Of course, in archaeology bias is always present when it comes to an objects interpretation but it is important to understand that interpreting an artifact on the basis of one’s own theory instead of interpreting the artifact in its raw form is ethically irresponsible.

The Jehoash Inscription is an excellent example of an artifact not being interpreted in its raw form. This artifact appeared in Israel in January of 2003. This artifact was extremely controversial when it was first found. The inscription describes repairs made to a temple by Jehoash, which corresponds to a story in the Bible.

The inscription was thus exposed to bias of cultural ideas and interpretations which represent the influences of the contemporary society. There was a religious bias and desire to connect the inscription with the Bible in order to confirm it as true. There was also a political bias as Israeli extremist groups wanted to use the tablet to support their movement to build a new temple on the Temple Mount.

 
Neither of these biases took into consideration the actual context or meaning of the raw artifact. They were too eager to connect it to their own interpretation and exploit it for their own purposes. I think that the biases could have contributed to the delay in finding out whether or not the inscription was authentic or not. I think that there is a general ethical responsibility for everyone to accept and respect the truest interpretation of the artifact.

Issue: Selling of Ancient Jewellery and Artifacts

Did you know that at the World Wide Store you are able to purchase REAL ANCIENT JEWELLERY??
Better hurry because there is a 30% OFF SALE happening right NOW!

Authentic ancient jewellery and artifacts. As a collector discover ancient secrets revealed to you through these mysterious and desirable ancient artifacts. Guaranteed to be authentic and from the period stated. Worlds largest selection of statues, coins, rings, and necklaces.
http://www.worldwidestore.com/

This was an actual website that came up on Google when I typed in ‘authentic ancient jewellery.’ I was curious to see what types of advertisements would come up with regards to the sale of ancient jewellery and antiquities. I find it kind of funny that this website expresses that if you are a collector you will love what they have to offer. I would think that if one is a serious collector of ancient artifacts, one would not support such a website. I think that not only do true antiquities collectors have the ethical responsibility to not support a website like this, but all people also do. It is very doubtful that the products available on this website are genuine even though they are “guaranteed to be authentic.”

This website brings to mind Article 4 of the UNIDROIT 1995 Convention on Stolen or Illegally Exported Cultural Objects. The article states:

In determining whether the possessor exercised due diligence, regard shall be had to

all the circumstances of the acquisition, including the character of the parties, the price paid,

whether the possessor consulted any reasonably accessible register of stolen cultural objects, and any other relevant information and documentation which it could reasonably have obtained, and whether the possessor consulted accessible agencies or took any other step that a reasonable person would have taken in the circumstances.

If any of these artifacts happen to be genuine, they were most likely stolen and therefore illegally exported. The UNIDROIT 1995 Convention can thus be applied to whomever is in possession of the artifact, but I wonder if the website would provide (or is even able to provide) the buyers with all of the information that is required to prove due diligence

Issue: Reconstructive Archaeology

This week while looking for ideas to write my essay on for my “Pirates, Traders, and Sailors in the Ancient Mediterranean” class, I became interested in researching what it would take to reconstruct not only an ancient ship, but also an ancient naval battle. An article that came of particular interest was one by N. Whatley titled “On the Possibility of Reconstructing Marathon and Other Ancient Battles” in The Journal of Hellenic Studies.

This article brings to light some of the concerns with reconstructing ancient ships and battles. In this article Whatley brings up two questions that I thought were particularly valuable to determining the ethic responsibility of those who do the reconstructing:

1.                     1.  How far is it really possible to reconstruct ancient battles with any finality?

2.                     2.  How far are the methods of attempting to reconstruct usually followed by modern writers, the soundest methods to employ?

Should the reconstruction of ancient ships be done ‘properly’ or just as something ‘cool?’

I think that if archaeologists and historians are working together with those who reconstruct the ship and the battle, there is an ethic responsibility among all of them to properly reconstruct the ship and the battle to the best of their knowledge. Of course something like re-enacting an ancient naval battle can easily be turned into more of a theatrical display and can therefore simply become something cool. The theatrical display of a naval battle would be considered more like a historical re-enactment, which is generally a hobby. The point of reconstructive (or experimental) archaeology is to generate and test hypotheses based on archaeological material, not necessarily to entertain.

 
Therefore, I believe that although it is possible to educate the wider public by exploiting a reconstruction’s entertainment value, it is not the true ethical purpose of reconstructive archaeology.

Quote of Interest

I thought that this quote could be considered when determining whether or not something is ancient.

"Old enough to belong to an historical and social epoch that is felt sufficiently different and far from the present one by most people."

-Franco Rollo, University of Camerino, Italy

Issue: Treatment of the Ancient Deceased

“The human body, alive or dead, has a moral value” – Frank Rühli

This blog refers to an article written in the magazine New Scientist, and more specifically the article titled “Ancient mummies have rights, too” by Jo Merchant. In the article, Merchant discusses how mummies weren’t always seen to have been ‘real’ people with families, morals, and a say in how their bodies would be treated after death. Ancient mummies were commonly assumed to be fair game for science. This perception is now beginning to change.

Anatomist Frank Rühli and ethicist Ina Kaufmann argue that “it is disturbing because research on mummies is invasive and reveals intimate information such as family history and medical conditions.” Rühli and Kaufmann are suggesting that mummies be treated as if they were a recently deceased person of today. I think that this particular concept about ancient mummies could also be applied to Native American burials.

I have found that many of those who want to dig up Native American burials use the excuse that goes along the lines of ‘these people have been dead for hundreds of years and have no direct lineage to any living person.’ Native Americans believe that all of their dead are still as much part of their family dead as they were alive. The concept of ancient mummies being real people should also therefore be applied to Native American burials.

Every burial, no matter how old or new it is, can provide extremely valuable information about the deceased’s life, family, and medical history. It may further provide information regarding the culture and society that the deceased lived in.

Merchant mentions that although it would be difficult to create a universal policy regarding the ethical treatment of mummies, a checklist of questions to consider would be useful.

It is unfair to treat any ancient body without the respect that one would treat a more recently deceased body with. One must at the very least consider his responsibility towards the body before invading it.

Link to the article: http://www.scribd.com/doc/37256004/New-Scientist-11th-September-2010

Cultural Issues of the Elgin Marbles

“the Parthenon marbles are to the Greek nation a thousand times more dear and more important than they can ever be to the English nation, which simply bought them”
-Frederic Harrison, “Giving Back the Elgin Marbles”

Without the financial means and economic support for recovering the Parthenon marbles, Greece is forced to miss essential pieces of its history and culture. The Parthenon marbles consist of one-hundred and fifteen panels of frieze, only ninety-four of which are extant. Of the surviving panels of frieze, the British Museum holds fifty-six, and of the surviving metopes (of the original ninety-two), it holds fifteen. The building and sculptures of the Parthenon were conceived and executed together for a specific purpose. They are better understood and appreciated if they can be seen together as a united image of Greek culture and identity. The negative effects of looting pushed Elgin to remove the marbles from their original historical and cultural context and to split them up, destroying their most effective display. Greece’s cultural identity would be better preserved if its archaeological cultures could be displayed altogether. Looting has split up cultural material from its country of origin which has caused negative effects on the presentation of the modern archaeology.

Looting has further created a negative image of the British Museum which currently holds the majority of the Parthenon marbles taken by Elgin. The British Museum has consistently attempted to present itself as a capable home for the Parthenon marbles. The Museum states that the marbles are seen by five million visitors a year and are actively studied and researched in order to promote a worldwide understanding of Greek culture. This seems like a valid argument, but Greece and its advocates continuously counteracts it by stating that the marbles cannot be considered completely part of the Greek culture unless they are displayed within (or at least closer to) their original context. The British Museum has also received criticism for harming the cultural identity of the Greeks due to the presentation of the Parthenon marbles in the museum. The Parthenon marbles were made to be on the outside wall of the Parthenon, but at the British Museum, they are displayed on the inside of the wall.

 
           The British Museum and its capability of presenting the Parthenon marbles have been negatively affected by looting. The modern archaeology of Greece and its representation to the wider populace has been damaged due to looting removing the archaeological evidence from its original and therefore most effective context.