HMS Erebus
British explorer Sir John Franklin set off from England sailing to explore the Arctic in the year of 1845. During his voyage to the Northwest Passage, two ships of Franklin’s expedition, HMS Erebus and HMS Terror, disappeared in the rangy Canadian Arctic. Finally, the Canadian search team found the wreckage of HMS Erebus in September 2014, with the stunning discovery announced by Stephen Harper.
Why was the discovery so significant? Why was it a politician but not any related scientist or archaeologist announced the exciting discovery? And why was it Harper, our head of state, but not any one else form the government?
The discovery of the wreck of HMS Erebus provided us physical evidences of the part of history that pioneers sailed to explore new land- specifically, the Canadian Arctic. Written documents plus physical evidences now presented a vivid piece of history.
As Harper stated in the video, the expedition team was composed of “both government and non-government …show more content…
organizations”, I personally think it was inappropriate to have Harper- a politician- as the representative announcing the discovery. It should rather be done by a member of the search team or published in the form of an academic journal considering the historical and archaeological significance of this discovery.
In the video, Harper acted very excitedly when announcing the discovery of the lost ship. He claimed the discovery as “a great Canadian story and mystery”. He praised the “great teamwork” and also their great contribution in “mapping together the history of Canada”. His brief speech called up a sense of pride and nationalism. In addition, one detail that I noticed in the video was that the backdrop had the phrase “a strong Canada” written on.
Stephen Harper, the leader of the country and the Conservatives, announced the discovery himself, which suggested that the government paid close attention to this archaeological discovery. Based on how the government took over the role of announcing the breakthrough, it could be inferred that the politicians used archaeological discoveries as tools of manipulation. Adding onto their scientific significance, they served in creating nationalism.
“Nationalists’ projects use archaeology to reinforce and validate mythic histories”, said Randall H. McGuire in Archaeology as Political Action. This statement interestingly matched with the case that we were discussing.
Some further questions that I have after watching the video are that: besides being used as a tool of manipulation in this case, is there any other ways of intersections between archaeology and politics that I did not pay attention to?
To be honest, I have never thought of issues of archaeology and ethics before. As I always regard archaeology as a rigorous subject that studies the ancient history of human society through material remains. What does such a scientific subject have to do with ethics?
Having the question in mind, I read through the Principles of Archaeological Ethics developed by the SAA. I am very surprised to see the variety of aspects that this code of ethics covers. These principles protect archaeological artifacts by compelling stewardship and preservation of archaeological record, demanding knowledge and high professionalism in archaeology, prohibiting any trading activities of archaeological objects, and promoting public education to pass on the knowledge to publics.
The most surprising ones to me among the eight principles are that “public education and outreach” and “public reporting and publication”. I have never known that the passing on of the knowledge is weighed so heavily in this subject. Archaeologists interpret archeological objects, publish their newly gained archaeological knowledge and “communicate archaeological interpretations of the past” with the publics as stated in the principles. It is very praiseworthy that archeologists value education so much as a way of drawing people’s attention to studying our cultural heritage. The rule that new discoveries must be published ensures that archaeological investigations are examined by the publics. This also guarantees the validity and authenticity of the investigations.
After comparing the principles mad by CAA and SAA, I find myself surprised to see an absence of protection of human rights in the SAA version, which is stated under "Aboriginal Relationships" in the Canadian one.
I think it is very necessary to include such a provision since our country has a great blend up of different culture. We should respect the cultural heritage of different groups under the countrywide scale.
In my opinion, the Principles of Archaeological Ethics is more like a code of conduct that all archaeologists in America have to obey. As archaeological artifacts are precious legacy from past human and evidences to study ancient history, and most importantly, artifacts are non-duplicable themselves and also the archaeological context they represent. I believe it is important to have this code because it not only clarify the role of archaeologists, build up one same moral norm that they all agree on, but also show their respect of the infinite knowledge left by the past
human.
Why was the discovery so significant? Why was it a politician but not any related scientist or archaeologist announced the exciting discovery? And why was it Harper, our head of state, but not any one else form the government?
The discovery of the wreck of HMS Erebus provided us physical evidences of the part of history that pioneers sailed to explore new land- specifically, the Canadian Arctic. Written documents plus physical evidences now presented a vivid piece of history.
As Harper stated in the video, the expedition team was composed of “both government and non-government …show more content…
organizations”, I personally think it was inappropriate to have Harper- a politician- as the representative announcing the discovery. It should rather be done by a member of the search team or published in the form of an academic journal considering the historical and archaeological significance of this discovery.
In the video, Harper acted very excitedly when announcing the discovery of the lost ship. He claimed the discovery as “a great Canadian story and mystery”. He praised the “great teamwork” and also their great contribution in “mapping together the history of Canada”. His brief speech called up a sense of pride and nationalism. In addition, one detail that I noticed in the video was that the backdrop had the phrase “a strong Canada” written on.
Stephen Harper, the leader of the country and the Conservatives, announced the discovery himself, which suggested that the government paid close attention to this archaeological discovery. Based on how the government took over the role of announcing the breakthrough, it could be inferred that the politicians used archaeological discoveries as tools of manipulation. Adding onto their scientific significance, they served in creating nationalism.
“Nationalists’ projects use archaeology to reinforce and validate mythic histories”, said Randall H. McGuire in Archaeology as Political Action. This statement interestingly matched with the case that we were discussing.
Some further questions that I have after watching the video are that: besides being used as a tool of manipulation in this case, is there any other ways of intersections between archaeology and politics that I did not pay attention to?
To be honest, I have never thought of issues of archaeology and ethics before. As I always regard archaeology as a rigorous subject that studies the ancient history of human society through material remains. What does such a scientific subject have to do with ethics?
Having the question in mind, I read through the Principles of Archaeological Ethics developed by the SAA. I am very surprised to see the variety of aspects that this code of ethics covers. These principles protect archaeological artifacts by compelling stewardship and preservation of archaeological record, demanding knowledge and high professionalism in archaeology, prohibiting any trading activities of archaeological objects, and promoting public education to pass on the knowledge to publics.
The most surprising ones to me among the eight principles are that “public education and outreach” and “public reporting and publication”. I have never known that the passing on of the knowledge is weighed so heavily in this subject. Archaeologists interpret archeological objects, publish their newly gained archaeological knowledge and “communicate archaeological interpretations of the past” with the publics as stated in the principles. It is very praiseworthy that archeologists value education so much as a way of drawing people’s attention to studying our cultural heritage. The rule that new discoveries must be published ensures that archaeological investigations are examined by the publics. This also guarantees the validity and authenticity of the investigations.
After comparing the principles mad by CAA and SAA, I find myself surprised to see an absence of protection of human rights in the SAA version, which is stated under "Aboriginal Relationships" in the Canadian one.
I think it is very necessary to include such a provision since our country has a great blend up of different culture. We should respect the cultural heritage of different groups under the countrywide scale.
In my opinion, the Principles of Archaeological Ethics is more like a code of conduct that all archaeologists in America have to obey. As archaeological artifacts are precious legacy from past human and evidences to study ancient history, and most importantly, artifacts are non-duplicable themselves and also the archaeological context they represent. I believe it is important to have this code because it not only clarify the role of archaeologists, build up one same moral norm that they all agree on, but also show their respect of the infinite knowledge left by the past
human.