The Archaeological Department has a splendid history. The work of the Department has gone a long way in tracing the history of this nation, piecing together the many story-strands, corroborating the narratives embedded in the less tangible such as folk lore and those that are hotly contested such as the written word. Glorious as this history of excavation and scholarship is, what happened to that which was recovered from various sites is a sad story.
Priceless archeological treasures recovered with great
effort by the Archaeological Department have been ferreted away from sites as
well as museums. Then there have been
treasure hunters who have pillaged archaeological sites located in remote parts
of the island and poorly protected.
Years ago a distinguished archaeologist observed wryly that
if we cannot protect artefacts then they are probably safer unearthed. He had a point. The Department is stretched to protect the
sites and museums are not safe either.
This is why it is valid for some to counter demands that
artefacts taken away by colonial powers should be returned by saying ‘we can’t
even protect what we have; they are probably safer in England’. Theft, though, is theft; stolen goods, whether
obtained by theft, purchase or gift, are stolen goods. A crime.
Punishable.
The right thing for government of countries whose museums or
private collections have such artefacts to do would be to recover them and
return to country of origin. No argument
there. Someone robs your car because
you were careless, the police once recovering the vehicle cannot hold on to it
claiming you are can’t be trusted to leave it unattended and open to
re-theft.
On the other hand, the would-be recipients of such treasures
must be equipped to receive. It’s not that there is some kind of condition for
returning loot but things that belong to the nation belongs to the people, and
that which is held in the public trust must be safe. If it is best to leave unearthed that which,
if excavated, we might lose forever, the same logic applied to the business of
recovering loot.
Pillage is older than the Archeological Department. Pillage, moreover, is not always an outside
job. Neither is the ‘inside story of
theft’ a recent phenomenon; the early excavators were not persuaded only by scholarly
intent. This does not mean that the
Department should be shut down. We’ve
had nidan horu. Treasure hunting earns headlines
often. Museum robberies too. What we rarely hear about is recovery. Typically new thefts take the public eye away
from old ones.
Perhaps contemporary society firmly believes that all things
depreciate in value over time; the older, the less worth. But what is a nation without a history? Sure, it is version or a discourse about
version, but without artefact, without text, there’s no argument. That suits those without history and those
who find history a bit uncomfortable due to lesser historical endowment. This is why destroying archaeological
evidence by way of bulldozing sites or building over them is as or more
pernicious than blasting statues and temples to look for treasure. The same goes for burning texts.
The colonial powers did it not to erase
history but erase a civilizational code, but the person who ferreted from the
Department of Archives the document detailing the first national census of
persons wanted in all probability to erase a non-history of a particular
community.
There are then several dimensions to this business:
vandalism, theft and historiography.
If we don’t know where we came from, we will find it hard to
figure out which of the available paths would lead to a better future for all
citizens. Artefacts are an important
piece of that story that we will have to visit and re-visit as our ancestors
have and as generations yet to come will have to.
The Department has to be strengthened with resources and
personnel. The holding facilities must
be secure. As of now, there doesn’t seem
to be any interest on the part of those whose job it is to attend to these
things. It is hard to believe that they
don’t understand the importance of such things.
If corrective steps are not taken, then it will be hard to stop people
from thinking that some people want things to stay this way. The answer to the obvious follow-up question,
‘why?’ will also be obvious. Someone is
benefitting. Someone powerful is benefitting.
The beneficiary or would-be beneficiary has checks to cash.
msenevira@gmail.com
0 comments:
Post a Comment