On the face of it archaeology should be the least politically sensitive of academic activities. The discipline however is a product of the intellectual
movement in 19th century Europe and followed the flag of European imperalism into every quarter of the globe. Reaction against colonialism in the present century has meant restriction on the practice of the academic pursuits associated with it

Golson, Jack

Australian Archaeology

English

Flinders Academic Commons

Australian Archaeology    Archived at Flinders University: dspace.flinders.edu.au  Full Citation Details: Golson, J 1975. Archaeology in a changing society. 'Australian Archaeology', no.2, 5-8. ARCHAEOLOGY  IN A  CHANGING  SOCIETY On the face of it archaeology should be  the least politically sensitive of  academic  activities.  It  is, after all, a subject devoted  to the study of  the rise of man  and his works,  throughout the world,  from  the earliest beginnings up  to yesterday,  and  as such it has no  commitment  to colour, creed or nationality.  The  fact is, however,  that it has incurred its measure  of  suspicion,  in Australia and overseas. The discipline is  a product  of  the intellectual movement  in 19th century Europeland followed the flag of European  imperalism  into every quarter of the globe.  The fundamental  work  on  the archaeology of  Egypt,  India,  even China,  was  done by  Europeans,  and  schools of  teaching and research grew  up  in Europe devoted  to the study of  the history and  cultures of every other part of  the world.  In the course of  their activity, material  artifacts of dead  and  living societies were  removed  in their thousands  for lodgement  and study in European  libraries and museums. Reaction  against colonialism in the present  century has meant  restriction on  the practice of the academic pursuits associated with it.  The  new  nations of  Africa and Asia tightly control the conditions under which  foreign research teams, archaeological and  other,  operate in their countries and  export their discoveries out of them.  Some  of  the most  stringent conditions on  foreign archaeological  activity are indeed  laid down by  countries like Greece  and  Turkey  with no  direct experience of  European  colonialism,  yet which  have  long been the object of  active academic  interest by  wealthier nations, because  of  the spectacular nature of  their archaeological remains  and  their particular place in the genesis of European civilisation.  There can,  of  course,  be  few  countries in the world  today without  antiquities legislation of  some  kind to prohibit  or control the export of  what  is called national cultural property,  particularly at a time when  the price of such  items on  the international market  is enormous. It is often forgotten, however,  how  important the role of  European  institutions has  been  in collecting and preserving manuscripts and  artifacts from other cultures that would  undoubtedly have otherwise been  lost.  Indeed it is largely due to European  scholarship that the world now  puts a value on  these things.  But  while the European scholar abroad has been,  as he saw  it, dedicated to the pursuit of  knowledge  for its own  sake,  others have  seen him as  involved  in an  exercise which  benefitted  only himself  and his colleagues.  A  major condition upon  overseas scientific Archived at Flinders University: dspace.flinders.edu.auresearch in Asian and Pacific countries nowadays is feedback from the scholar to the host country at both national and local levels, by his explaining the nature and value of his work before it starts, training nationals as it proceeds and communicating its results when it is finished. It seems likely that the suspicions  that have been voiced by Aborigines about anthropological research in Australia in general and archaeological research in particular are partly the result of lack of such communication between students of Aboriginal culture and Aboriginal communities. But in Australia, and also in countries like the United States and Danada, the problem is a deeper one, for it involves.  the feelings of an indigenous population whose culture has been swamped by the permanent settlement of alien intruders and which has for long been a forgotten minority in its own land.  It was inevitable that when the reaction against this situation set in, the alien scholars of the indigenous culture should be amongst the prime targets for criticism by the erstwhile objects of- their study. It is true that individual scholars have established the closest of relations with Aboriginal communities with whom they have worked and that research has become a co-operative and mutually beneficial activity.  Particularly in the more populated areas of Australia, however, where Aboriginal communities are less noticeable or,  perhaps more truthfully, have not been sought out, such relationships exist rarely if at all.  Now that Aborigines have set up their own organisations to voice their grievances and aspirations,  the opportunity clearly exists for us to explain what, as archaeologists in Australia, we are trying to do and why. One of the major strengths of archaeology is its ability to demonstrate common themes in the history of mankind and at the same time describe the unique experience of different peoples in it. In a short history, 150  years in some parts of the world, like Europe, much less in others, like Australia and the Pacific, its discoveries have shown how,  equipped with culture, man inherited the earth, spreading from a tropical homeland first by land, hundreds of thousands of years ago, across the continental landmasses of Africa and Eurasia, later, tens of  thousands of years ago, over ice to the Americas and over sea to the then united continental island of Australia and New Guinea.  These considerable achievements,  which involved the mastery of virtually all known habitable environments, were made by stone- using people in small scale societies living by women's gathering of wild foods and man's  hunting of wild animals,  This type of economy, which was that of the Aborigines until it was wholly or partially destroyed by the European takeover of Australia, is a common experience in the history of all human societies.  In a Archived at Flinders University: dspace.flinders.edu.autimescale for man  now  to  be  reckoned  in perhaps  three million years,  the first break  with this tradition came  a mere  10,000 years ago with the development  and  subsequent  spread of agriculture.  This in time and  in places led from  5000 years ago  to the rise of  large scale societies equipped with writing and  organised  in cities and  states.  Industrial societies such  as we  know  today are of very recent growth, within the last thousand  years. Archaeology  has not  only provided  a timetable of these developments,  by  which  they can be  seen in perspective; it has shown  how  none  of them  was  the work  of  a single people or a single part of  the world;  how  discoveries like agriculture were  made  independently and  in different  forms  in many  places;  how  unique  inventions like the wheel  were  taken over,  adapted  and  improved  by  other peoples ; and  how  the legacy which  our modern  society has inherited from the past is from all ages and  all parts of the world. In the population and  environmental  crisis of our present times,  however,  the development  of  large scale industrialising societies that are typical of some  parts of the world  and  have been  aggressively exported by  them  to others is no  longer seen as  an unmixed  blessing by  its  main  beneficiaries, let alone its victims.  In reaction there has been  a growing interest in alternative forms  of  human  experience in living. Archaeology  is making  its own  contribution to  the debate by  a study of the circumstances in which  some  societies maintained an  effective balance between  their populations and  the environment  that provided  their resources,  while others took the path of economic and  social expansion and  environmental transformation.  Australian Aboriginal  society is of  great interest in this respect,  since from the archaeological evidence now  being won  it maintained  an  enviable stability over perhaps  50,000  years. The  excitement  of its discoveries,  and their humanistic appeal,  have won  for archaeology a  following amongst  the general public unequalled  amongst  the academic disciplines, not  only as readers of books  and  viewers of films,  but  also participating in research on  archaeological excavations.  Because it deals with the entire span of human  history, new  nations in Africa and  Asia,  with  little  written history or one deriving wholly from  their experience under European  colonialism,  have  strongly encouraged its practice,  since it provides them with  a focus of proper pride in the achievements of  forefathers of their own. As archaeology develops in Australia,  and  it is still an  infant here, it has the potential to make  a  similar contribution to the character of this country.  For  the Aboriginal  Australian it can recover the hidden information for a history of  his people;  it has already made  dramatic and  unexpected  discoveries important not only for the history of  the Aborigines  but  for the history of mankind  at large.  It can  guide the European  Australian Archived at Flinders University: dspace.flinders.edu.auto an appreciation of a long lasting way of life different from his own, which was successfully practised even in the harshest parts of the continent, was broken only by force and still maintains an identity in the modern world.  For both groups, CO-citizens  as they are, it can help to foster a joint pride in the unique past of the particular part of the world where both now live. This is a large aim and will not have been achieved until Aboriginal scholars are working on the archaeology of Australia and of other parts of the world as well.  The first steps must be modest, since we have to overcome not only lack of knowledge of our aims, but suspicion of our activities. This seems to involve two things:  seizing every opportunity to explain our work to Aborigines, and undertaking the responsibility of discussing projects we wish to initiate with appropriate Aboriginal groups.  We may well find that because of the temper of the times some projects are not negotiable.  It will be a measure of our success when such areas of disagreement disappear. Jack Golson ARCHAEOLOGISTS AND ABORIGINES Some thoughts following the AAA  Symposium at ANZAAS 1975 The problems that have already arisen, and are likely to occur even more in future, regarding Aboriginal hostility to archaeological work in Australia seem to be due mainly to lack of public understanding of what archaeology is all about.  For this archaeologists themselves are chiefly to blame, because of their general disinclination or inability to communicate in a popular way.  In comparison with the Australian situation one might consider the enormous popularity of an interest in archaeology in Great Britain, which is considerably due to popular archaeological publications and TV series, leading to wide public support for the excavation and preservation of archaeological sites.  One reason for the avoidance of the popular media by archaeologists in Australia is probably fear of interference and vandalism and, latterly, of Aboriginal political exploitation. However, it was made clear at the AAA  Symposium that Aborigines, both country and urban, feel very strongly and genuinely opposed to desecration of burial sites of their ancestors, regardless of any specific local connotations.  This is not just a political ploy;  it is an emotive issue that can Archived at Flinders University: dspace.flinders.edu.au

Archaeology in a changing society

http://dspace.flinders.edu.au/xmlui/bitstream/handle/2328/125/1975002005008_final.pdf?sequence=3

Archaeology in a changing society

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Flinders Academic Commons