From the Field of Bosworth to the Sands of Timbuktu

Richard III of England

The University of Leicester in England has announced that they have confirmed that the bones dug up from under a parking lot are indeed those of the hapless Richard III. Of course, this has brought up all kinds of delicious speculation and historical revisionism, particularly from those who think he was a much maligned king, especially via Shakespeare's history, exemplified by Laurence Olivier's almost cartoonish performance. Shakespeare clearly drew on historians who had fealty to Elizabeth I, a granddaughter of the winner at Bosworth, Henry of Lancaster. An example of how history is written by the winners, as well as by those who wish to flatter them.

Those of us who care about cultural and historical survival have been following the struggles in Mali and the ancient city of Timbuktu, where it was originally speculated that in addition to the destruction of the Sufi saints' tombs, the Ansar Dine would burn the ancient manuscripts. After all, there is much reason for concern; those who care watched in horror as the Taliban assaulted the Bamiyan Buddhas which had survived for 1,700 years. Good news, the majority of the ancient manuscripts are said to be safe.

(via: Hyperallergic dot com)

"Decentralizing the documents, which range from academic treatises to commercial contracts, law books, and medical texts, kept them safe. After Tuareg rebel fighters entered Timbuktu on April 1, curators and collectors began to remove texts from the libraries and “distributed them around,” Cape Town University professor Shamil Jeppie said. The New Yorker reports that 50,000 manuscripts are housed in 32 family libraries that remain protected."

History is cruel. Elizabeth I's father, Henry VIII had a dispute with the Catholic Church. In the process of wresting power and, it must be said, money and influence from the Church of Rome, Henry destroyed monasteries all over England. Due to this destruction the bones of the only English King with the designation "The Great," Alfred, are missing. Also missing are those of Henry I to the same cause.

Who Owns Museum Stuff?

I grew up in the Art Institute of Chicago and the Field Museum of Natural History, which means that I enjoyed and learned about the world looking at the fruits of loot inside these magnificent catch-all encyclopedic repositories. James Cuno in his book Who Owns Antiquity argues that encyclopedic museums, those catch-all of goodies from the world-over are good things.  He has been excoriated for this.  I stand with him; I agree that these museums are a good thing.

The British Museum is not going to give the Elgin Marbles to the government of Greece.  If each and every nation-state insists that whatever is in the ground belongs to them and only them, then whatever current national interests exist will be the only things served.  Thus in the face of increasing Sino-ization of Tibet, the Amharization of Ethiopia, the Russianization of the former Soviet border states, what contrary issues and ideas will survive.  Eleven and twelve centuries ago an entire tribe of Tartars converted to Judaism, their artifacts lie in the Trans-Caucasus between the Caspian and the Black Seas.  Russian archaeologists deny that those artifacts are Jewish. The Taliban destroyed the Buddhas of Bamiyan out of pure religious zealotry and spite with no regard or respect for their own antiquity or anyone else on the planet.

Der Spiegel ran a story today about the discomfort and downright political hostility experienced by Erika Steinbach, leader of a group that calls itself The Federation of Expellees in Germany that wants to document the sufferings of Germans expelled by the Polish government at the end of the Second World War.  The Polish government argues fearfully that such Germans should not be permitted to see themselves as victims of the Nazis.

I argue that they are victims of the insistence that the modern nation state defines nationhood and nationality on narrow bases of tribalism, race, religion, and language.  Cuno argues the same for archaeological artifacts.

Cuno posits that the argument over rightful ownership of antiquities is not whether they and the sites they come from should be preserved but how to preserve them and increase our knowledge of and increase public access to them.

We are all one tribe, we deserve to see all of our ancestors goodies and treasures; we do not want them besmirched in the name of narrow national interests.