25th January 2009, 10:50 PM
Hells teeth! Even Hodder would be scratching his head! Tough one (or batch) to answer. I think that archaeologists themselves are often guilty of underestimating the enormity of their responsibility to the public at large. We are after all engaged in the characterisation of our collective past-a past that undeniably has/can and will be used for purposes of national sentiment, legitimation and " citizenship". For me, I feel that archaeology has an obligation to contribute to the social sciences, to the education system and the community at large. In the purest sense, archaeology is a science and an art that encompasses the study of political theory and is not by rote, driven by it.
"democracy" in my view is simply a concept as yet unattained since its inception by the Greeks. Its meaning and value has completely changed far beyond its original ideology. Western nations/cultures are yet to achieve "democracy" after centuries of trying so I would find it difficult to see how this can be achieved by archaeology as a profession. In the context of our profession, I think it would be a huge achievement if we could reach a consensus on many of the more pressing issues. For me (I can hear people yawning already!), I would like to see a profession that adheres to obligatory and binding professional standards that are regularly monitored and policed. I would like to see heritage issues backed by unambiguous and comprehensive legislation rather than limp guidance gestures. Those are my basic foundation stones upon which all else hang. What I really don`t want to be a part of is the Judean Peoples Front scenario where endless semantic "dialogue tennis" obscures and obfiscates progress towards solutions. I don`t feel that we (as a profession) need to strive for "true" democracy in the process of our endeavour for change. It would be like asking Hodder for a simple answer and hoping that he gets his point across before old age takes its toll.
..knowledge without action is insanity and action without knowledge is vanity..(imam ghazali,ayyuhal-walad)
"democracy" in my view is simply a concept as yet unattained since its inception by the Greeks. Its meaning and value has completely changed far beyond its original ideology. Western nations/cultures are yet to achieve "democracy" after centuries of trying so I would find it difficult to see how this can be achieved by archaeology as a profession. In the context of our profession, I think it would be a huge achievement if we could reach a consensus on many of the more pressing issues. For me (I can hear people yawning already!), I would like to see a profession that adheres to obligatory and binding professional standards that are regularly monitored and policed. I would like to see heritage issues backed by unambiguous and comprehensive legislation rather than limp guidance gestures. Those are my basic foundation stones upon which all else hang. What I really don`t want to be a part of is the Judean Peoples Front scenario where endless semantic "dialogue tennis" obscures and obfiscates progress towards solutions. I don`t feel that we (as a profession) need to strive for "true" democracy in the process of our endeavour for change. It would be like asking Hodder for a simple answer and hoping that he gets his point across before old age takes its toll.
..knowledge without action is insanity and action without knowledge is vanity..(imam ghazali,ayyuhal-walad)