Redeeming the 'Illicit'?

Earlier this week I received a curious little manila envelope in the post. I wasn't expecting anything in particular so I opened it with a flash of excitement akin to receiving an unexpected present. The package was extremely light (around 20g), so I carefully unstuck the flap and gently tipped the contents on to my desk. What emerged was something of a surprise, a delicate Roman glass necklace.

The mysterious parcel contained a Roman glass necklace.

Along with the necklace was a note from the sender (a young archaeologist who will remain anonymous) explaining that this object had been purchased for them by their mother as a misguided present. Despite being a gift, it was unwanted as it was apparently an illicit artefact. The sender felt that the lack of provenance and their lack of interest in collecting such things rendered the necklace tainted, along the lines of 'laundered drug money'. Thankfully they didn't tell their Mum that!

However, the sender hoped that Archaeosoup might be able to make use of the necklace for educational purposes. As they wrote in their note - 'they wanted to see the artefact redeemed'. If it could no longer impart useful contextual information, it might be useful for education as a Roman artefact or as a case study in 'illicit trade'.

Is this right? Can such an artefact be ethically repurposed?

Now, first of all, it's worthwhile stating that by virtue of its status we don't know that this artefact is infact 'illicit'. By definition, we know nothing about it beyond what it is, a Roman glass necklace from the first or second century AD. It has been wrenched from its context, meaning that its archaeological value is gone, but so too is the mechanism by which this information was lost. Was it legally dug but then sold on? Was it illegally dug and passed into a trader's hands? Was it part of a private collection or even stolen from a provincial museum? Was it a gift from an old archaeologist to a friend? We just don't know.

So this necklace may or may not be illicit in the sense of being potentially illegal but I can understand why simply having it as a 'thing' made the young archaeologist uncomfortable. But does that potentially mean it cannot or should not be used for educational purposes? 

This situation doesn't come up very frequently but it's not the first time I have had to consider the ethics of using a 'real' 'decontextualised' artefact for education. Ultimately this is an issue which every archaeologist will have a different opinion about and every instance will have different circumstances and ethical considerations, but I guess I consider it to be a little like fur.

With the rise in awareness about the cruelty of the fur trade, people quite rightly boycotted buying animal fur for clothing, indeed fur farming was banned in the UK in 2003. This general distaste for fur, along with possible health concerns led to an interesting side-effect. Charity shops in the UK who took possession of the increasingly unpopular commodity adopted official policies of incinerating fur which came into their shops. I know of some branch managers who fostered special arrangements with local interest groups (historical re-enactors, for example) but for the most part the policy holds true.

Re-purposed fur coat used to teach about Prehistory.

One day I was offered a fur coat by a woman who despite deploring the fur trade had inherited the garment from her mother. She suggested that I take apart the coat for use in a prehistoric workshop. However, because of the very worthy questions surrounding the use of fur for clothing, I thought for a moment before I accepted the coat. I reminded myself that fur comes with a price and that price is absolute. However, I realised that the price has already been paid. The animal(s) which were killed to make the rather hideous 1970s coat are long dead and perhaps the best use for their fur was not to burn it but rather to use it in a genuine way. This was a chance to redeem their sacrifice a little beyond mere fashion and to use this ancient commodity to teach young people about our past, highlighting that while those resources no longer need to be used, they were once a necessity.

In the case of the necklace - archaeologically speaking - it's already dead! So why not make use of what Flinders Petrie would call 'murdered evidence' to teach, to inform and to explain why its value is more than intrinsic? Whilst I do not advocate using all such artefacts and I certainly don't recommend scouring eBay for objects to use in workshops, in this case I think it's a little like the fur coat.

Denying this artefact's value as a potential teaching tool would do nothing to discourage the trade in such items (on eBay for example) but embracing it as an example may just start to chip away at the machinations, large and small, illicit and ignorant, which brought it to my door. 

- Mr Soup

English Translation of KÖK Press Release

The following is an English translation of the press release mentioned by Liv in this month's Soup News:



"Wikimedia Sweden released a really interesting press release today which states that they are starting a project called Kopplat Öppet Kulturarve (Connected Open Cultural Heritage) which aims to gather and publish unique digital information about assorted cultural heritage around the world.

The project is going to be founded by Postkodslotteriets cultural fond from which they have received 2,5 million Swedish Krona.

Their main goal is to collect and digitally publish around 100 000 pictures of cultural heritage under an open licence policy. Among other treasures about 2500 pictures of Palmyra in Syria is planned to be released.

“Our Cultural Heritage is destroyed both by the works of time and because it disappears into forgetfulness of us [humanity] as a collective. Some is destroyed by deliberate action and systematically by forces that wants to erase parts of history that collides with their own world views” say Wikimedia Sweden's operations manager Anna Troberg and adds “I am proud that Wikimedia Sweden is involved and building the digital defence line for cultural heritage”

KÖK is driven and coordinated by Wikimedia Sweden but it is a collaboration with UNESCO, Kulturarv utan gränser (Cultural Heritage without Borders) and Wikimedia Italia. There will also be intensive collaborations with museums, libraries, archives and government offices from about ten countries.

“We will mostly be working with completely unique material that for the first time will be connected and made public through among other things Wikipedia through the platforms of Wikimedia” say John Andersson, who is the project leader for KÖK. “The project will not only be leaving traces on the internet. We will also be doing a photo exhibition in three countries”

Angelica Månsson-Gerde, general manager for PostkodsLotteriets cultural fond comments;

“Without Wikimedia Swedens initative irreplaceable cultural heritage from many different sites around the world is at risk of being lost completely. Through digital technology and collaborations with professionals as well as amateurs from all over the world Wikimedia Sweden now creates the conditions not only to preserve cultural heritage at risk of being destroyed or disappearing, but to make it available for the public and research. We are proud to support this project"

Archaeologists: Nazis, Out of Touch or Misunderstood?

Channel 5 online screen grab: Fair use for review and reporting

Reflections on the public response to Channel 5's 'Battlefield Recovery'

Well it's been a busy couple of weeks at Archaeosoup Towers; not least because of the resurgence of footage from the canned series 'Nazi War Diggers' in the guise of 'Battlefield Recovery' on Channel 5, here in the UK. If we put the ethics, the potential legal problems and the ad hominem insults which have been flying around on Twitter  to one side, something else floats to the surface.

One of the most interesting trends of the ongoing Social Media discussion surrounding this controversial series is the number of people who seem to think that the mere recovery and display of artefacts is essentially what Archaeology is. Comments have ranged from:

'Let the public decide!' to

'What's the problem so long as the treasures end up in a museum?'.
 
Despite years of outreach and TV series such as Time Team, there is little understanding of the meticulous research, recording and reporting which is crucial to the archaeological method. There is seemingly no general knowledge of the ongoing work which is done to improve our methodology and limit it's adverse impact on the past. ie Archaeologists don't just dig stuff up!

There also appears to be a lack of sensitivity for the handling of human remains (actual people who lived and died in the Second World War). Not only is this an ethical concern but potentially contrary to broadcasting standards and guidelines linked with decency and responsible portrayal of behaviour on TV.

Screen grab from Steve Taylors public Facebook account, 24/12/13

Finally, folk mistake a call for professionalism (aimed at those who commission and produce TV content) for an attempt to censor freedom of speech. One Tweet ironically accused me of being a Nazi for attempting to limit civil rights. As if clumsily pawing at human remains, haphazardly handling potentially dangerous munitions and even crassly modelling helmets recovered from the forest floor of a WW2 battlefield constitute an artistic or political choice! People appear to be equating such unethical and unprofessional behaviour with a piece of extreme art or a political statement. They confuse crass and uncivilised behaviour such as looting war graves with actions at the very pinaccle of our civilisation - the right to freedom of speech!

Edit: On a related note - It's worthwhile considering that our outcry to the producers and commisioners of this world is not merely a form of unionism... ie Hire an archaeologist or else! Rather it's a cry of dismay that it's possible to make better TV together! Drama without sacrificing integrity, intrigue without jargon and digging without the method 'getting in the way' of the production. Not to mention that Archaeologists aren't particularly expensive haha - world-beating expertise without a huge budget!

Though I will concede that the ongoing philosophical and legal discussion about what 'freedom of speech' actually constitutes is far from over (and probably, quite rightly, will never conclude). Most people understand that the handling of human remains is a sacred or even taboo act! Imagine for a moment, if people randomly plucked your grandfather's remains from the ground for no good reason, digging in a 1940s graveyard to see what they can find!? No impending building or infrastructure project is putting the graveyard at risk of destruction and (despite what the edited captions in Battlefield Recovery now say) there is no attempt to record the excavation. They're just seeing what's there... This abhorent scenario should only be more shocking when applied to disarticulated remains discovered on a battlefield, a war grave!

Channel 5 online screen grab: Fair use for review and reporting

It is not the purpose of this blog post to look down on those who misunderstand archaeology. I am not interested in pronouncing or prescribing morals from an ivory tower. Rather, I want to know why?

Why do people not know better? Why is the past so often seen as a resource which anyone can use and abuse? Finally - why oh why is the training and ethical concerns of archaeologists and historians, adding to and agonising over centuries-long debates about 'who owns the past?' and where 'red lines' in the handling of history should be, ignored?

I won't pose any detailed answers here as I would encourage you, dear reader, to think on this, debate and comment below. However, I suspect that education and a push for acknowledgement of the profession as... Professional... might be a start?

And that is why Archaeosoup exists. Clearly there is work yet to be done!

- Mr Soup

2016 at Archaeosoup Towers...

Well it's that time of the year again. Christmas and New Year's Eve have come and gone and I am preparing to look back on 2015 in this year's Annual Round Up video.

We had a lovely Christmas at Archaeosoup Towers.

As always I'll be reflecting, along with the Archaeosoup team, on the past year for Archaeosoup but also for the world of archaeology.

Obviously, I don't want to spoil the content of that video here but there is a thread of thought which has come to the fore in the past couple of days, particularly in conversation with Mrs Soup. She has reminded me that among notions of planning, preparedness, action and intent there has to be fun!

Archaeosoup's endeavours have always been at their best when they are driven by moments of inspiration, genuine interest and fun! This is something which had slightly slipped out of the 'soup for me in 2015.

2015 unfolded in exciting and unexpected ways, throughout the year I found myself increasingly busy in both planned and entirely unexpected ways. In the times when I could actually sit down and plan potential projects, I would try to think about what 'people want' from, in particular, Archaeosoup videos, a menu of-sorts... As you can imagine, this is a somewhat oxymoronic train of thought because people clearly want more 'soup and the 'soup is at its best when warm and prepared by an enthusiastic chef - haha! No Menu, just the best and freshest Soup of the day!

So, there you have it - If last year's goal was a 'year of action', this year's goal will be a 'year of fun' (along with action and more frequent blog posts - haha).

So here's to 2016 and whatever it may bring!!!