Context matters: looking beyond the objects

I was in a meeting earlier today with European colleagues. We were discussing the implications of the return of material from the Michael Steinhardt collection as well as items from Fordham University, the Getty, the Cleveland Museum of Art and San Antonio Museum of Art. And as we reflected on the number of items involved, my colleague cried out, "We need to look beyond the objects".

He articulated the major issue for these returns. It is not just about where these objects reside. But it is about the archaeological contexts that have been lost. It is about the permanent loss of knowledge. 

The couple of hundred objects are likely to represent a couple of hundred contexts that have been ripped apart; associations lost for good.

As academics should we be shifting the discussion towards the intellectual implications and consequences of such destruction? 

| |

Archaeological objects have contexts

I have been working on some recently surfaced material. And as I sat discussing the objects with a colleague it reminded me of some key issues.

Archaeological contexts provide information about dates, associations, place of use etc. Such information does not 'reside' in the object if it is plucked --- one could use the word 'hoiked' --- from its context in an unscientific manner.

So a database of decontextualised archaeological odds and ends is not the same as a detailed archaeological report.

I wonder if one of the issues is that some museum curators do not understand the importance of archaeological contexts. They can attempt to understand the object by searching for parallels --- and how many people have read Kevin Butcher's excellent "Land of Parallél" in the Archaeological Review from Cambridge? --- but are unable to "give" the lost information back to the object.

I will be exploring this tension between "archaeological material" and "museum objects" in my lecture at UCL next week.