Michael Tierney schrieb:
> I read with interest and growing frustration Cornelius Holtorf's report on
> World Archaeological Congress meeting in Croatia looking at the destruction
> and conservation of cultural property. I share in his excitement about what
> happened there, about the standard and breadth of the presentations, about
> the quality of the organisation of the week and in terms of WACs ambitions
> relating to politically aware archaeologies.
>
> His description and analysis of events took a turn for the worse when he
> attempted to dip his toes into directly political waters. His attitude to
> events is one which calls for *moderation*, for *reconciliation* and
> *dialogue* as he places himself in the centre between the comparable
> opposites of *Hindu nationalism* and *left-wing extremism*.
>
> The essence of his position, which I will argue is contradictory and
> unsustainable, is captured  is his lauding of the motion proposed by the
> academic coordinator of the conference Bob Layton. This stated that "The
> conference condemns the use of archaeology to promote ethnic, religious or
> political conflict and calls on archaeologists worldwide to respect the
> full complexity of their country's history in the conservation of all
> aspects of cultural heritage". Aside from the fact that it contradicted 2
> previous motions which in different ways emphasised the political nature of
> all archaeology what I find interesting is that this was considered to be
> the best and appropriate response by core members of WAC to what had been
> going on at the conference.
> What was going on?
>
> Despite the picture painted by Cornelius there was no organised left group
> there, rather a small and vocal minority who kept objecting in various ways
> to the arguments of BJP and RSS activists and their apologists at the
> conference. Our objections were not pre-planned, were generally moderate in
> tone (the most *extreme* manifestation of leftism being when I called one
> of the participants a fool for believing that his supposed objectivity as a
> scholar would keep his work from being used by those on the right), but a
> response, initially personal and reactive and gradually more coherent and
> directed, to the exposition of far-right, totalitarian ideologies relating
> to Indian politics in which archaeology and history were being mobilised to
> promote a particular kind of authoritarian Hindu supremacy of a one nation,
> one leader, one people type.
>
> On the other hand BJP participation was clearly coordinated, and aimed at
> replicating their victory at Delhi. During the sessions on Ayodya there was
> what was widely felt to be intimidatory behaviour by one of th BJP
> activists at she photographed and vidoetaped oppositon speakers. The WAC
> executive refused to stop this behaviour. As for the content of their
> talks, it was frightening to witness for oneself the use of archaeology for
> deeply authoritarian ends, always dressed up in the language of science and
> scholarliness, and to recognise that one was witnessing a display of a view
> of history which is directly complicit in the rise of violent rightwing
> Hindu chauvinism in India.
>
> In between were the majority of delegates who generally behaved as though
> the debate had little to do with them and was some kind of peculiarly
> Indian issue rather than the Indian manifestation of a rightwing politics
> of intolerance found right across the world.
>
> Perhaps it might be appropriate to follow through some of the issues raised
> by what has happened to WAC since it was manipulated by the BJP in Delhi in
> more detail later on. It is very easy to throw insults at each other and I
> am as interested in dialogue as Cornelius, but argue that there are some
> people, politics and ideologies which are beyond the pale. I will finish up
> with one more critical comment though.
>
> It is necessary to recognise the political nature of calls for moderation,
> dialogue and reconciliation- this is the politics of liberalism, a pretend
> washing of ones hands from the responsibility of taking sides. In the
> context of India by not taking sides immediately and with principle WAC has
> contributed in its own little way to allowing the BJP to form a government.
> By not taking sides and not saying that we refuse dialogue with fascists
> western liberalism has played a small part in allowing the rightwing Indian
> genie out of the bottle. We now see this genie comes in the shape of
> mushroom clouds. The politics of archaeology is deadly serious, liberal
> platitudes rarely contribute to progressive solutions and are frequently
> lead to the maintaining of the status quo. The ongoing saga of WAC
> grappling with its liberal conscience is just the latest example of this.
>
> Michael Tierney
> Department of Archaeology,
> University of Wales, Lampeter,
> Ceredigion, Wales, SA48 7ED.
>
>
 
lazy bastard finally set up a website:
home.t-online.de/home/gcarver
geoff carver
[log in to unmask]