Goose-stepping

The Goose-step is a fascinating exhibition of unity in purpose, often associated with institutional arrogance. Wikipedia describes it well:

"The goose-step takes much practice and dexterity, and so the purpose of the goose-step is the demonstration of absolute mechanized discipline and superiority. Some, such as George Orwell, feel that the goose-step is also intended to look ridiculous, as Orwell said in his 1940 essay The Lion and the Unicorn: [Goose-Stepping] is simply an affirmation of naked power; contained in it, quite consciously and intentionally, is the vision of a boot crashing down on a face. Its ugliness is part of its essence, for what it is saying is "Yes, I am ugly, and you daren't laugh at me", like the bully who makes faces at his victim… Beyond a certain point, military display is only possible in countries where the common people dare not laugh at the army."

While Goose-stepping is most commonly associated with the military regimes of Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin, and a few modern imitators, it has been employed by a few non-military groups as well. The Australian Public Access Network Association says: "Like most forms of exercise, it is good for the health. Regular goose-stepping is good for the heart, and can aid in weight control. It is particularly good for firming up the thighs and buttocks." Be that as it may, references to Goose-stepping and public practice of the activity are typically pejorative.

Archaeological Goose-stepping is usually hidden behind the euphemistic and seemingly altruistic appeal of serving the "Greater Good." Those who hear this calling tend to present themselves, with apparent sincerity, as the righteous stewards of the tangible history of mankind. Indeed, that calling sometimes inspires a great fervor and almost religious idealism. Who could deny that the world's various cultures are a heritage that should be preserved? Whether institutional stewardship is an appropriate or advisable vehicle for preserving cultural heritage is a legitimate question. The preservation of heritage is something that depends not so much on whether an organization exists for that purpose, but more so on the innate sense of belonging and protectiveness that is harbored within each individual of a cultural group. Political institutions come, go and change. Individuals, on the other hand, generally remain true to their heritage.

The inherent danger of any fervent belief, when institutionalized, is that the exercising of that belief can become an end unto itself—metaphorically, Goose-stepping. In their latest blog postings, archaeologists Nathan Elkins and Paul Barford do a little Goose-stepping for no apparent reason other than to rattle an institutional sabre. The purpose of these posts is to assail two metal detectorists in Britain who legally found and reported a coin hoard that they excavated. The individuals involved broke no law, and are actually to be commended, but Elkins makes an attempt in his blog to turn the issue from the legal considerations to ethical considerations. In the mind of Mr. Elkins, the completely legal activity in question is unethical. By what ethical standard, I might ask, does this activity warrant censure? The only answer possible is by the standard imposed by the Goose-stepping Mr. Elkins and those in rank and file with him. Any belief or law that runs counter to their institutionalized mindset is automatically, by their own measure, "unethical". Mr. Elkins, hiding behind the mantle of others, tosses up a couple quotes about "U.S. Cultural Imperialism" applying that label to the Ancient Coin Collectors Guild—as if he were merely "reporting" what others have said. What balderdash, Nathan Elkins is simply Goose-stepping in the second row.

Mr. Barford's post is equally preposterous. He jumps on the fact that the coins were retrieved in the dark. Would it have been better if the finders waited til morning when the sun had made its cycle? Now really, what would you do if you were metal detecting (legally) and found a few coins late in the day? Then you found more, and more, and more! Would you stop retrieving them because the sun had set? Barford further bemoans the fact that the coins were found three feet below the surface—despoiling the "context". Think about it, three feet! People dig a bigger hole than that to plant a fruit tree.

Obviously, the condemnations of Elkins and Barford were inspired not by any horrible loss of cultural information, but by the institutional mindset that all recovery of objects from the past is a sacrosanct right of cultural property stewards. That this stewardship is self-assumed apparently makes little difference. The real issue, as I have said in the past, is one of control. Goose-stepping is all about control and domination. Trying to hide it behind a mask of altruism and concern for preservation of the past is a red herring and a pitiful disservice to the legitimate discipline of archaeology. It insults those who practice their profession as a service to humanity rather than a means of repressing individual rights that are well established under law.