The display of human remains is a controversial issue in many contemporary societies, with many museums globally removing them from display. However, their place in genocide memorials is also contested. Objections towards the display of remains are based strongly in the social sciences and humanities, predicated on assumptions made regarding the relationship between respect, identification and personhood. As remains are displayed scientifically and anonymously, it is often argued that the personhood of the remains is denied, thereby rendering the person ‘within’ the remains invisible. In this article I argue that the link between identification and personhood is, in some contexts, tenuous at best. Further, in the context of Cambodia, I suggest that such analyses ignore the ways that local communities and Cambodians choose to interact with human remains in their memorials. In such contexts, the display of the remains is central to restoring their personhood and dignity.
Interactional strategies in late-nineteenth-century Classical archaeology:
the case of Adolf Furtwängler
Ulf R. Hansson
‘More feared than loved’131
have made Furtwängler place himself outside and at times even in open
conflict with sections of this community and some of its key members,
and he was in turn socially isolated by many of his colleagues (Reinach,
1907b; Bissing, 1907; Hauser, 1908; Church, 1908; Furtwängler, 1965:
231f.). But he was never or rarely marginalised as a scholar, rather the
opposite: Furtwängler in fact managed to be both ‘feared and respected
by all’ (Reinach, 1907b) or rather, ‘more feared than loved’ (Perrot,
1900), and his work was
Like all of the foreign archaeological institutes in Greece, the French
ROBERTS 9781526134554 PRINT.indd 92
A romance and a tragedy93
School at Athens – the oldest of the foreign schools – was deeply and unashamedly political. In fact, when it was first founded, the French School’s
mandate for the propagation of French culture was stronger than its
mandate for archaeological research (Valenti, 2006: 24). In this respect,
it was a close relative of the newly founded French Institute in Prague.
During the First World War, the French School at
is also deliberately pursued. World Heritage can thus be designated as glocal; that is, a phenomenon that combines the global and the local. But glocality as a concept is not an exhaustive answer, since the World Heritage Convention with its list of World Heritage sites crosses borders in several respects: in its intentions; in relation to the categories of nature and culture; in respect of World Heritage themes; and with regard to chronology, geography, and engagement.
The fundamental intention of the World Heritage Convention is to protect and preserve
and (particularly important for bog bodies) cultural studies of violence (e.g. Mays 2008 ; see also papers in Lohman and Goodnow 2006 ).
Yet do we have the right to display them? Alberti et al . ( 2009 : 140) cite the Vermillion Accord (Clause 2), which states that the wishes of the dead (ancient or modern) should be respected where they can be ‘known or reasonably inferred’ – unfortunately the pressures of the contemporary planning and extraction industries often tear the dead out of the place they probably intended to lie in for perpetuity. We have little
” and the “new” world.
If we follow Rogers, the innovators would be the first 2.5 %, a figure achieved with the accession of Bulgaria in March 1974. This would mean that four countries were the innovators – the US, Egypt, Iraq, and Bulgaria. But that would amount to interpreting the material in an overly formalistic way. In view of the differences in respect of administrative and political systems between these countries, it would be a mistake to attribute too much importance to a few months or a year here or there in the date of ratification.
In the course of the
and monuments linked precisely to the West. This criticism wants to see an extension of heritage in both theoretical and practical terms. The material therefore needs to be supplemented by the intangible, so that more people around the world can have their heritage – and therefore their identity – recognised. To be specific, more representation of heritage is needed in relation to neglected subjects, periods, geographical areas and, especially, groups in society with respect to class, gender, and ethnicity. The selection of heritage should not be directed from above
Breasted had committed to sending money to Petrie for the ERA’s work
in the field. By October of that year, Breasted had sent Petrie $155
for excavations, thus guaranteeing the Haskell Museum a number of
objects from that season’s work (Petrie to JHB, October 31, 1896: JHB
Office Files, 1894–6). It is clear from private correspondence that they
respected and admired one another and that they both highly prized
fieldwork. Their collegial relationship would continue for the rest of
their careers, and they remained warm friends as well.
Much as it had done
that the idea of the two cultures also sprang from Snow’s personal experience as both a physicist and an author. But even if Snow’s powerful pair of concepts has long been outdated, I would submit that there is a current gap between the two cultures with respect to their view of history, memory, and heritage. Despite the comprehensive affiliation to the World Heritage Convention, there is still no consensus about heritage or World Heritage.
The two cultures of heritage originate from different roles and therefore dissimilar perspectives – on the one hand
Re-thinking Ludwik Fleck’s concept of the thought-collective according to
the case of Serbian archaeology
formulating and changing this. The central figures, or members of
esoteric circles within scientific communities, are equivalent to preachers
to whom others extend trust. It is interesting that Fleck argues that
popular and textbook science, always slightly simplified and seemingly
convincing and well based, reinforces belief in the objectivity within the
scientific community. Hence, it functions as a loop: the scientists preach
to the broadest public possible, who in turn consider their statements as
relevant and express respect for them, and in turn the scientists see