Easter Island vandalization-Aarrr!

[fearn]

Originally Posted by VANDOO

YEP THIS WILL BE A CONTROVERSIAL SUBJECT

[snip]
THERE ARE THOSE TODAY WHO FEEL THAT WE ALL SHOULD ALL BE FORCED TO DO AS THEY SAY AND THEY WOULD NOT ALLOW US MUCH. WE WOULD ALL HAVE TO BECOME VEGITARIANS, FREE ALL THE ANIMALS AND WEAR ONLY CLOTHES MADE FROM PLANTS, LIVE IN HOLES IN THE GROUND SO WE WOULD NOT NEED TO CUT THE TREES OR DIG UP THE EARTH TO MAKE CEMENT OR MINE METALS, COAL OR OIL. ABSOLUTELY NO COLLECTING JUST STAY ON THE PATH AND TAKE NOTHING EXCEPT AIR AND SUN AND LEAVE ONLY FOOTPRINTS.

I mostly agree with what Vandoo's saying about collecting, so I snipped that part out. The point he made here is telling though, and since it affects my everyday work and my current collecting, I thought I'd comment on it.

Right now, I'm working as an ecologist in a conservancy. Yes, we've got lots of "stay on the path and don't eat the plants" rules. Since I saw what the place was like before the rules came in, I hate to say it, but there's a reason for them. The problem is that if you have to deal with a mass of people, all too often, you have to impose draconian rules to restrain the idiots. At least half the people could be given more freedom, if they could somehow be distinguished from idiots. Problem is, they can't. Some of the idiots may even be running the place.

I'll drag this back to ethnographic weapons in a sec, but the real irony for me is that the conservancy land was inhabited for thousands of years before it became a nature conservancy. The natives ate the plants--they had to, or they would starve. Similarly, they took amazingly good care of the place--they had to, or they would starve. Nowdays, our well-being does not depend on taking care of the conservancy lands as a sustainable food supply, and so we're left with "stay on the path and don't eat the plants." The place doesn't look as good as it once did, but no one is willing to risk starvation to care for it properly.

Getting back to ethnographic weapons, the similarity between collecting and managing the conservancy is, in my view, alienation from the subject. To us collectors, these are objects. They used to be everyday tools, or weapons that protected your family, killed your enemies, or whatever. But for the most part, we don't use them that way. We put them in cases and haul them out every once in a while to look at them and clean the rust off. We're as alienated from our ethnographic weapons as are the people who walk down that path in the Conservancy, and don't eat the plants.

One way to end the alienation is to view ourselves as custodians of items. We're not the first owners, and if we value objects as artifacts, then we care for them and pass them along. This is one good way to be an responsible collector.

Another good way is to support traditional bladesmiths who still make these weapons, but that's another post.

My 0.00002 cents,

F

[A. G. Maisey]

This thread started as a comment on the relics at Easter Island. I guess we'd call these archaeological artifacts. They belong to a vanished culture and I think most people would like to see them stay where they are and be protected.

There has been comment on the Elgin Marbles. I'm not going to get involved in that blue, but I can draw a parallel with Jawa:- when they came to restore Candi Prambanan, they found that much of the cut stone had been removed to use in the nearby village for building material. The Candi had moved past its period of relevance for the people living around it, so they put the stone to good use as building materials for the living. I dare say we can find many similar examples across the world, for instance in China, where I understand that bricks from the Ming period wall were removed by locals to use as building materials. It seems to be a characteristic of mankind that we will destroy that which we think is useless or irrelevant, and replace it with that which we currently consider relevant and useful. Then a few generations later our descendants curse us for being barbarians.

But apart from this idea of preservation of architectural or archaeological relics, there is another question here.

If all relics of the past are considered as belonging to a defined ethnic group, culture, or society, where does that place the works of art of great artists of the past? Let's not limit our thinking here to just painters, but to sculptors and all forms of art. Works of art that are spread throughout the world, and that are regarded as the treasure of all mankind?

Now, if we consider these things as belonging to one specific group of people, how should we consider various technological advancements? Do these also belong to a single group of people?

What of intangible cultural property? Ideas, philosophies, and so on?

Yes, it is certain that many nations have laws in place that prevent the export of identified objects, such as items of cultural heritage, or works of art.

But is this justified?

Most particularly, is it justified in an age when national boundaries and national identities mean less with every passing day,

I'm afraid I could well be out of step with many of you people, but I see the national boundaries that are spread across our world as simply an extension of tribalism, and evidence of man's inability to cooperate with his neighbour. I have no doubt at all that with the development of human society, national boundaries will disappear, ethnicity will disappear and these objects that are currently being squabbled over in a way reminiscent of children squabbling over toys will be regarded as a common heritage of mankind.

However, my dream is probably a very long way into the future; in the meantime I believe that all of mankind has a duty to protect the creations and the heritage of not only the cultural group or society of which one is a part, but of all cultural groups.

Now, if this is so, how do the various governments across the world, who have no hesitation in destroying items which form a part of our common cultural heritage, excuse their actions?

Are they not acting in a way that is contrary to the best interests of civilization?

Are they not behaving in a fashion that is similar to that of the unlettered villagers who took the stone from Candi Prambanan?

At least these villagers had the excuse of ignorance, they knew no better. But our current politicians, leaders and law makers have had the benefit of very expensive educations, and they still act like unlettered barbarians.

I suppose we can only blame ourselves for this:- in most cases, we elected them.

[Yannis]

I feel I have to clear that: I have no problem that Nike of Samothrace is in Louvre museum and hundreds or thousands moving parts (like statues or objects) of Greek origin are out of Greece, as far as they are not recent illegal excavations.

But Elgin marbles is quite different story. They are part of Parthenon. I wonder how the Americans would react if it was missing the torch of Liberty statue...

[A. G. Maisey]

Be that as it Yannis my friend.

I will not get involved in that debate.

I apologise for using an Australian colloquialism:- "blue" in this context means argument.

I want no part of any discussion of the Elgins. Thank you very much.

[Mark]

Well though-out arguments on both sides. Pieces like the "Elgin" marbles, various obelisks, portions of the temples at Angkor, etc., are perhaps the hardest to address, as the point Yannis made is a very good one - they are part of a larger context that still exists in the country of origin. The trend that I see is that these are slowly being returned to their native lands, which personally I think is good, but only if they will be protected and made accessible by the public.

It is unfair, again in my own opinion, to demonize all collectors past and present as despoilers of others' cultures. While very likely that artifacts were taken home as trophies and/or curiosities, it is also true that for whatever reason they were taken, they were in many cases saved from destruction. Another trend that I see is people around the world who had previously not given much thought to their heritage now taking great interest and pride in it. The number of anthropologists and archeologists working in their own countries is always increasing, the ideal (to me) being that the past be studied by those to whom it most directly belongs (not exclusively, mind you, but in active part). Interest and pride in their Scythian heritage is spreading among Russians, of Meso- and South-American cultures among the indios, Khmer culture among the Cambodians, etc. It is fortunate, I think, that there was enough interest by someone to preserve whatever small portions of a foreign cultural heritage until the day were it can be accepted, understood, and appreciated, by the heirs.

Sometimes good things are done for the wrong reasons. They are still good things, though.