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.

Sour Grapes

My previous blog post heralded the appointment of Brent R. Benjamin to the Cultural Property Advisory Committee (CPAC) as a positive step in fulfilling the intent of the Convention on Cultural Property Implementation Act. Specifically, that is to provide a balanced perspective when evaluating requests from other nations for the imposition of import restrictions on cultural property. The eleven presidential appointments to CPAC come from diverse segments of society that are mandated by law—so that the work of the committee will reflect the views and interests of society, not just of a favored special interest. Archaeologists hold seats on the committee, as do anthropologists and ethnologists. And, so do representatives of the museum community, the trade and the general public. Mr. Benjamin, as Director of the St. Louis Art Museum, was appointed by President Bush to fill one of the positions allocated to the museum community.

As news of this appointment reached the street, there was an immediate furor among some archaeologists who characterized the appointment as "outrageous", among other adjectives, and squalled like bawling little brats who didn't get their way. They refer to supporters of Mr. Benjamin's appointment (I guess that includes me) as "ignorant". What was the impetus behind these little temper tantrums? It's simple—Mr. Benjamin is not one of them! For some time, the museum community has been represented by appointees favorable to the Archaeological community's retentionist world view of cultural property management. It mattered little that the museum community largely opposed import restrictions, their CPAC representatives religiously voted in favor of restrictions. The prospect of a true representative of museums joining the committee must be terribly daunting. The outcry really is a case, however, of the pot calling the kettle black.

When the Cypriot request for import restrictions came before CPAC, it was obvious that committee member Prof. Joan Connelly, an archaeologist who excavates in Cyprus and is beholding to the government of Cyprus for that permission, faced what most rational people would see as a clear conflict of interests. Although this was formally brought to the attention of the Executive Director of the Cultural Heritage Center, which embodies CPAC, the pro-archaeological administration of the State Department's Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs determined in their infinite wisdom that no conflict existed. Be that as it may, the rant from the archaeological community about Mr. Benjamin, in retrospect, is hardly credible. All that Mr. Benjamin did to provoke their ire was to demand proof that one of SLAM's Egyptian antiquities was actually stolen, as the Egyptians claim, before he would agree to repatriate it. Frankly, given the record of Zahi Hawass, I think Mr. Benjamin is absolutely correct and fully justified in being cautious. The very fact that he has not been intimidated into some irrational response by Hawass is all the more reason to think that he was a good choice for the CPAC post.

I can't help feeling a bit bewildered about the reaction of archaeologists to this appointment. If I, for one, were to challenge an appointment to one of the archaeology or anthropology seats because the appointee was a cultural property nationalist, that would be considered a bizarre criticism—of course they would be, duh! Why is this any different? Frankly, I'm not sure what Mr. Benjamin's feelings are in regard to globalism versus nationalism in the museum world. I am guessing, however, that they are less ideologically based than we have seen in recent years. One can at least hope. Isn't that, after all, why we have mandated sector appointments?