Tuesday, October 27, 2009
Threats to World Heritage Sites
A release of the 2010 World Monuments Fund list of global architectural treasures at risk from urban development, tourism, neglect and bad planning. The latest list comprises 93 sites in 47 countries, including ancient structures but also 15 that were built in the 20th century and are already deemed endangered classics.
Saturday, October 24, 2009
The Repatriation Card
The New York Times' Michael Kimmelman consistently writes against repatriation; he is back at it with "When Ancient Artifacts Become Political Pawns," published today, focusing on recent Egyptian repatriation claims. In particular, he suggests that the claims by Egypt’s chief archaeologist, Zahi Hawass, are a kind of political payback for election loss of the Egyptian culture minister, Farouk Hosny, as Unesco's new director general. (Note: This last sentence was corrected, thanks to a posted comment.)
Kimmelman argues that all of Egypt's claims are just moves in an global chess game, played by a handful of high-powered cultural brokers who are motivated only by their own narrow political and nationalist interests. He writes, "The country’s only potent weapon left may be antiquities. It plays to popular sentiment and national pride. While the art world likes to ponder the merits or misfortunes of seeing art from one place in another place or the inequities that have resulted from centuries of imperialist collecting, the real issue behind the Egyptian claims, as with so many others, is nationalism." This article, in other words, is the newspaper equivalent of the art world's Who Owns Antiquity?
It's a fascinating story, and an important one, but Kimmelman's editorializing which characterizes these claims as just another skirmish in the "culture wars"--where the "repatriation card" is a key tactic--is willfully simplistic and probably quite wrong. Hopefully, museum anthropologists can pick up where Kimmelman leaves off, creating more nuanced and anthropologically-grounded analyses that reveal the complex role heritage plays on the global stage.
Kimmelman argues that all of Egypt's claims are just moves in an global chess game, played by a handful of high-powered cultural brokers who are motivated only by their own narrow political and nationalist interests. He writes, "The country’s only potent weapon left may be antiquities. It plays to popular sentiment and national pride. While the art world likes to ponder the merits or misfortunes of seeing art from one place in another place or the inequities that have resulted from centuries of imperialist collecting, the real issue behind the Egyptian claims, as with so many others, is nationalism." This article, in other words, is the newspaper equivalent of the art world's Who Owns Antiquity?
It's a fascinating story, and an important one, but Kimmelman's editorializing which characterizes these claims as just another skirmish in the "culture wars"--where the "repatriation card" is a key tactic--is willfully simplistic and probably quite wrong. Hopefully, museum anthropologists can pick up where Kimmelman leaves off, creating more nuanced and anthropologically-grounded analyses that reveal the complex role heritage plays on the global stage.
Thursday, October 22, 2009
What's in a Name?
What’s in a Name? Some thoughts on fakes, forgeries, replicas, the real thing, and archaeological experience by Stephen E. Nash.
Authentic. Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary offers several definitions: “worthy of acceptance or belief as conforming to fact or reality”; “trustworthy”; “not imaginary, false, or imitation”; “conforming to an original so as to reproduce essential features.”
Visitors to museums, national parks, and world heritage sites seek authentic objects, features, and structures as a matter of course—why would one want to travel to see fakes, replicas, or forgeries, particularly in a digital age and perpetual connectivity when (doctored?) images are but a few clicks away?
Just as we take it for granted that the gallon of gasoline we pay for is, in fact, a gallon, many of us take it for granted that the “authorities,”—whether they be museum curators, park superintendents, or government agencies—present for our enjoyment and edification the “real” artifacts and “real” archaeological sites, unless otherwise noted. The recent reconstruction, construction, and even “Extreme Makeover” of the Akapana Pyramid, “in order to make it more attractive to tourists” has justifiably upset those in the heritage preservation community. The Akapana Pyramid’s status as a World Heritage Site is now threatened, perhaps justifiably, because (among other things) adobe, not stone, was used as construction material. That said, the episode begs the questions of what is, and is not, deemed “authentic” in our world. A few thought-provoking examples will suffice.
Mesa Verde National Park is a World Heritage Site, and it has enjoyed more than a century of professional (according to the standards of any given era, of course) archaeological research. It has also borne the brunt, arguably, of one of the longest and most sustained looting efforts of any archaeological region in North American. It has also suffered from nearly a century’s worth of well-intended, if at times misguided, reconstruction efforts, the results of which are not always obvious to the visitor. Sun Temple, for instance, was “reconstructed” in 1916 by Jesse Walter Fewkes of the Smithsonian Institution, and his “reconstruction” is still visible today, with Portland cement capping the stone masonry walls. Recent tree-ring dates from samples I collected in the western half of the site range from A.D. 1560 to 1909, indicating merely that Fewkes used deadwood in his reconstruction. (Or should we call it “construction”?) In short, the site as currently constructed may have little or no bearing on what the site looked like during thirteenth century. Should we be outraged, as people seem to be with the Akapana Pyramid?
Colorado is home to another, more egregious example—the Manitou Springs Cliff Dwellings near Colorado Springs. These are “authentic” cliff dwellings in that the stones and (supposedly) the wooden beams used in their construction were taken from a real cliff dwelling in an undisclosed location in the 1930s. These construction materials were driven to a suitable looking cliff and reconstructed (again, constructed?) in a location closer to Denver and Colorado Springs, thereby relieving all but the most dedicated of tourists the then-arduous and still-long drive to Mesa Verde National Park. Should we be outraged?
Ten years ago, archaeologists and flint-knappers John Whittaker and Michael Stafford made the astonishing claim that “based on our knowledge of the knapping world and its history, we do not consider any non-archaeological [e.g. not professionally excavated] collection made after the 1930s to be surely uncontaminated” (see Replicas, Fakes, and Art: The Twentieth Century Stone Age and Its Affects on Archaeology” American Antiquity 64(2):203-214). If they are correct, collections in many, if not most, museums in North America are therefore tainted to an unknown, and unknowable, degree. To make matters worse, they calculate that flint knappers in North America alone make 1,500,000 new points each year. These have to go somewhere; many will one day be offered to museums as “authentic.” Where is the outrage?
In a counter-intuitive twist, it appears that internet technology may have led to diminished looting of archaeological sites and a vast increase in the production of fakes, including high-quality fakes. Charles Stanish recently made this case in Archaeology and cites an example from La Paz, Bolivia, in which one of the potters ingeniously uses well-preserved ancient grass as temper for the pottery, such that a radiocarbon date on organic residue in the newly manufactured vessel would yield an ancient date! He also makes the terrifying assertion that the fakes are so prevalent that supposed experts may now, in fact, be receiving their training on fakes! Where is the outrage?
Back to Akapana. The reconstruction (construction?) of the pyramid was initiated in a poorly conceived, poorly planned, and poorly executed, effort to make the site more attractive to tourists. Its status as a World Heritage Site should be reevaluated, but even if it is stripped of that status, will it really affect visitation to the site? We may hope that it will, but diminished visitation may have the unintended consequences of economic sanctions, decimating the local economy further and perhaps, we might guess, lead people to looting or manufacturing fakes.
We need to be careful not to cast stones too far. I am reminded of the recent reconstruction (construction?) of Soldier Field, in Chicago, which used to be on the National Register of Historical Places. The Chicago Bears football team, a private corporation, used millions in tax dollars to renovate the park. In essence, a completely new stadium, which looks like a flying saucer, was built (landed?) in the middle of the old stadium. In an appropriate if belated fit of pique, and in front of far fewer television cameras than are present on a normal game day (of which there are only 10 per year, sans playoffs) the National Park Service stripped the National Register plaque off the old stadium shortly after the new stadium was dedicated. Did anyone care? Where is the outrage? The point is that designations such as the National Register and World Heritage Sites are honorifics. Like merit badges on a boy scout who cannot afford shoes, they may miss the most important points.
Authentic. Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary offers several definitions: “worthy of acceptance or belief as conforming to fact or reality”; “trustworthy”; “not imaginary, false, or imitation”; “conforming to an original so as to reproduce essential features.”
Visitors to museums, national parks, and world heritage sites seek authentic objects, features, and structures as a matter of course—why would one want to travel to see fakes, replicas, or forgeries, particularly in a digital age and perpetual connectivity when (doctored?) images are but a few clicks away?
Just as we take it for granted that the gallon of gasoline we pay for is, in fact, a gallon, many of us take it for granted that the “authorities,”—whether they be museum curators, park superintendents, or government agencies—present for our enjoyment and edification the “real” artifacts and “real” archaeological sites, unless otherwise noted. The recent reconstruction, construction, and even “Extreme Makeover” of the Akapana Pyramid, “in order to make it more attractive to tourists” has justifiably upset those in the heritage preservation community. The Akapana Pyramid’s status as a World Heritage Site is now threatened, perhaps justifiably, because (among other things) adobe, not stone, was used as construction material. That said, the episode begs the questions of what is, and is not, deemed “authentic” in our world. A few thought-provoking examples will suffice.
Mesa Verde National Park is a World Heritage Site, and it has enjoyed more than a century of professional (according to the standards of any given era, of course) archaeological research. It has also borne the brunt, arguably, of one of the longest and most sustained looting efforts of any archaeological region in North American. It has also suffered from nearly a century’s worth of well-intended, if at times misguided, reconstruction efforts, the results of which are not always obvious to the visitor. Sun Temple, for instance, was “reconstructed” in 1916 by Jesse Walter Fewkes of the Smithsonian Institution, and his “reconstruction” is still visible today, with Portland cement capping the stone masonry walls. Recent tree-ring dates from samples I collected in the western half of the site range from A.D. 1560 to 1909, indicating merely that Fewkes used deadwood in his reconstruction. (Or should we call it “construction”?) In short, the site as currently constructed may have little or no bearing on what the site looked like during thirteenth century. Should we be outraged, as people seem to be with the Akapana Pyramid?
Colorado is home to another, more egregious example—the Manitou Springs Cliff Dwellings near Colorado Springs. These are “authentic” cliff dwellings in that the stones and (supposedly) the wooden beams used in their construction were taken from a real cliff dwelling in an undisclosed location in the 1930s. These construction materials were driven to a suitable looking cliff and reconstructed (again, constructed?) in a location closer to Denver and Colorado Springs, thereby relieving all but the most dedicated of tourists the then-arduous and still-long drive to Mesa Verde National Park. Should we be outraged?
Ten years ago, archaeologists and flint-knappers John Whittaker and Michael Stafford made the astonishing claim that “based on our knowledge of the knapping world and its history, we do not consider any non-archaeological [e.g. not professionally excavated] collection made after the 1930s to be surely uncontaminated” (see Replicas, Fakes, and Art: The Twentieth Century Stone Age and Its Affects on Archaeology” American Antiquity 64(2):203-214). If they are correct, collections in many, if not most, museums in North America are therefore tainted to an unknown, and unknowable, degree. To make matters worse, they calculate that flint knappers in North America alone make 1,500,000 new points each year. These have to go somewhere; many will one day be offered to museums as “authentic.” Where is the outrage?
In a counter-intuitive twist, it appears that internet technology may have led to diminished looting of archaeological sites and a vast increase in the production of fakes, including high-quality fakes. Charles Stanish recently made this case in Archaeology and cites an example from La Paz, Bolivia, in which one of the potters ingeniously uses well-preserved ancient grass as temper for the pottery, such that a radiocarbon date on organic residue in the newly manufactured vessel would yield an ancient date! He also makes the terrifying assertion that the fakes are so prevalent that supposed experts may now, in fact, be receiving their training on fakes! Where is the outrage?
Back to Akapana. The reconstruction (construction?) of the pyramid was initiated in a poorly conceived, poorly planned, and poorly executed, effort to make the site more attractive to tourists. Its status as a World Heritage Site should be reevaluated, but even if it is stripped of that status, will it really affect visitation to the site? We may hope that it will, but diminished visitation may have the unintended consequences of economic sanctions, decimating the local economy further and perhaps, we might guess, lead people to looting or manufacturing fakes.
We need to be careful not to cast stones too far. I am reminded of the recent reconstruction (construction?) of Soldier Field, in Chicago, which used to be on the National Register of Historical Places. The Chicago Bears football team, a private corporation, used millions in tax dollars to renovate the park. In essence, a completely new stadium, which looks like a flying saucer, was built (landed?) in the middle of the old stadium. In an appropriate if belated fit of pique, and in front of far fewer television cameras than are present on a normal game day (of which there are only 10 per year, sans playoffs) the National Park Service stripped the National Register plaque off the old stadium shortly after the new stadium was dedicated. Did anyone care? Where is the outrage? The point is that designations such as the National Register and World Heritage Sites are honorifics. Like merit badges on a boy scout who cannot afford shoes, they may miss the most important points.
Monday, October 19, 2009
SAA Scholarships
The Society for American Archaeology (SAA) is pleased to announce the following 2010 scholarships:
Native American Graduate Archaeology Scholarship
To support graduate studies for Native American students, including but not limited to tuition, travel, food, housing, books, supplies, equipment, and child care (up to $10,000).
Native American Undergraduate Archaeology Scholarship
To support undergraduate studies for Native American students, including but not limited to tuition, travel, food, housing, books, supplies, equipment, and child care (up to $5,000).
Arthur C. Parker Scholarship & NSF Scholarship for Archaeological Training
To support archaeological training or a research program for Native American students or employees of tribal cultural preservation programs (up to $4,000).
These scholarships are intended for current students—high school seniors, college undergraduates, and graduate students—and personnel of Tribal or other Native cultural preservation programs. High school students must be currently enrolled as seniors to be eligible. Undergraduates and graduate students must be enrolled in an accredited college or university. These scholarships are open to all Native peoples from anywhere in the Americas, Alaska Natives, Native Hawaiians, and Indigenous Pacific Islanders.
The application form is available online at: www.saa.org/scholarships. The complete application must be received by DECEMBER 15. A single email with all the application materials attached must be emailed to: nasf@saa.org.
If you have questions about these scholarships or you need help with locating a field school or other training program, please contact the Society for American Archaeology at: telephone +1 (202) 789-8200; fax +1 (202) 789-0284; or email nasf@saa.org. Your questions will be relayed to someone who can assist you.
Native American Graduate Archaeology Scholarship
To support graduate studies for Native American students, including but not limited to tuition, travel, food, housing, books, supplies, equipment, and child care (up to $10,000).
Native American Undergraduate Archaeology Scholarship
To support undergraduate studies for Native American students, including but not limited to tuition, travel, food, housing, books, supplies, equipment, and child care (up to $5,000).
Arthur C. Parker Scholarship & NSF Scholarship for Archaeological Training
To support archaeological training or a research program for Native American students or employees of tribal cultural preservation programs (up to $4,000).
These scholarships are intended for current students—high school seniors, college undergraduates, and graduate students—and personnel of Tribal or other Native cultural preservation programs. High school students must be currently enrolled as seniors to be eligible. Undergraduates and graduate students must be enrolled in an accredited college or university. These scholarships are open to all Native peoples from anywhere in the Americas, Alaska Natives, Native Hawaiians, and Indigenous Pacific Islanders.
The application form is available online at: www.saa.org/scholarships. The complete application must be received by DECEMBER 15. A single email with all the application materials attached must be emailed to: nasf@saa.org.
If you have questions about these scholarships or you need help with locating a field school or other training program, please contact the Society for American Archaeology at: telephone +1 (202) 789-8200; fax +1 (202) 789-0284; or email nasf@saa.org. Your questions will be relayed to someone who can assist you.
Museum Anthropology Review
A new issue (vol. 3, no. 2) of Museum Anthropology Review. Congratulations to our museum journal colleagues across the ether!
Friday, October 16, 2009
Catching Looters
Roger Atwood has written extensively on the perils and problems of the global antiquities trade. Check out his latest op-ed, "To Catch a Looter," in the New York Times. What can happen, what could happen, to the material history of Iraq when U.S. and coalition forces leave?
Wednesday, October 14, 2009
Who Demands the Cutty Sark?
You have heard of the Elgin Marbles and Zuni War Gods, but what say you of the Chronicle of the Kings of Alba, the Cutty Sark, and the Lübeck Letter? Who knew that that Mary Queen of Scots, in her quiet repose, might be the center of heated repatriation demands. Well, anyone following Scottish heritage politics would know. Check out this fascinating list of the Top 10 Scottish Artifacts Abroad.
Tuesday, October 13, 2009
Artist Fellowships
The Indian Arts Research Center in Santa Fe, New Mexico seeks Native and First Nations artists to apply for its upcoming artist fellowships for 2010-2011. Please forward to any artists, list serves, and individuals who may be interested.
The Indian Arts Research Center (IARC) at the School for Advanced Research (SAR) offers three artist-in-residence fellowships annually to advance the work of mature and emerging Native artists. Each fellowship includes a $3,000 monthly stipend, housing, studio space, supplies allowance, and travel reimbursement to and from SAR. These fellowships provide time for artists to explore new avenues of creativity, grapple with new ideas to further advance their work, and to strengthen existing talents. The fellowships support diverse creative disciplines and can include sculpture, performance, basketry, painting, printmaking, digital art, mixed media, photography, pottery, music, writing, and film.
Artist fellows must live on the SAR campus, complete a project resulting in the creation of one or more works, and make a public presentation at the end of their fellowship. While in residence, artists can access the IARC collection of Native arts for research and study. Additionally, SAR would like to see the fellow's work represented in the object, archives, or photo collection; therefore, the fellowships request the donation of a single piece created while working at SAR. If selected for the fellowship, artists must agree to participate in interviews, photo sessions, video recordings, and exit interviews to document the fellow's process and progress. This information will be entered into the IARC archives to serve as a permanent public record.
Deadline to apply is January 15, 2010. This application cycle includes: the Ronald and Susan Dubin Native Artist Fellowship 2010, Rollin and Mary Ella King Native Artist Fellowship 2010, and Eric and Barbara Dobkin Native Artist Fellowship for Native Women 2011. To download the application, read the FAQ, or find out more about the fellowships, visit: http://artists.sarweb.org
Completed applications must be postmarked no later than January 15, 2010. There are absolutely no exceptions to the date. Incomplete applications will not be reviewed. Any supplementary materials submitted will not be considered or returned. Notifications will be sent approximately four months after the application deadline. Questions may be directed to (505) 954-7205 or poon@sarsf.org.
The Indian Arts Research Center (IARC) at the School for Advanced Research (SAR) offers three artist-in-residence fellowships annually to advance the work of mature and emerging Native artists. Each fellowship includes a $3,000 monthly stipend, housing, studio space, supplies allowance, and travel reimbursement to and from SAR. These fellowships provide time for artists to explore new avenues of creativity, grapple with new ideas to further advance their work, and to strengthen existing talents. The fellowships support diverse creative disciplines and can include sculpture, performance, basketry, painting, printmaking, digital art, mixed media, photography, pottery, music, writing, and film.
Artist fellows must live on the SAR campus, complete a project resulting in the creation of one or more works, and make a public presentation at the end of their fellowship. While in residence, artists can access the IARC collection of Native arts for research and study. Additionally, SAR would like to see the fellow's work represented in the object, archives, or photo collection; therefore, the fellowships request the donation of a single piece created while working at SAR. If selected for the fellowship, artists must agree to participate in interviews, photo sessions, video recordings, and exit interviews to document the fellow's process and progress. This information will be entered into the IARC archives to serve as a permanent public record.
Deadline to apply is January 15, 2010. This application cycle includes: the Ronald and Susan Dubin Native Artist Fellowship 2010, Rollin and Mary Ella King Native Artist Fellowship 2010, and Eric and Barbara Dobkin Native Artist Fellowship for Native Women 2011. To download the application, read the FAQ, or find out more about the fellowships, visit: http://artists.sarweb.org
Completed applications must be postmarked no later than January 15, 2010. There are absolutely no exceptions to the date. Incomplete applications will not be reviewed. Any supplementary materials submitted will not be considered or returned. Notifications will be sent approximately four months after the application deadline. Questions may be directed to (505) 954-7205 or poon@sarsf.org.
Monday, October 12, 2009
Considering Columbus
On this Columbus Day, we encourage a reading of Edmund S. Morgan's essay, "Columbus' Confusion about the New World," published in the Smithsonian Magazine. A moving and powerful portrait of the colonial urge both to understand the world and to dismantle it.
Friday, October 09, 2009
Giinaquq--Like A Face
An article yesterday on a presentation about the new book Giinaquq--Like A Face, University of Alaska Press's best-selling book of 2009; it details the fascinating story of 70 Alutiiq ceremonial masks that were housed in a museum in France, and later reuinited with the descendants of the Alutiiq artists who made them, in Kodiak, Alaska. The book is a must-have for every museum anthropologist's book shelf!
Tuesday, October 06, 2009
Do Universities Need Museums?
A thoughtful short essay by Stan Katz, at Princeton University's Center for Arts and Cultural Policy Studies, asking why universities need museums. He points out that few anthropologists base their research on museum collections and the days of "heoric" collecting are done and gone. What purpose, then, if not for research and not amassing scientific specimens? The default answer seems to be teaching, but then, one might ask whether university museums are effectively engaging with students and the faculty. Katz doesn't quite answer this question, leaving room for debate.
Of note, Katz highlights the success of a recent exhibit Gifts from the Ancestors, now at the Princeton University Art Museum. Just opened, this exhibit looks fantastic, presenting the fascinating, beautiful, and controversial ivory pieces from the far north. According to the website:
Gifts from the Ancestors highlights the unique and compelling archaeological art over past millennia from the Bering Strait region. The objects included on this website served as tools used for hunting, play, ritual, and domestic activities. They also reveal in their fine modeling and incised decoration a passion for embellishment. Contemporary Yup’ik people, whose lifeways and beliefs share many similarities with those of the ancient peoples of Bering Strait, explain this penchant for “dressing” artifacts in beautiful design and decoration as an outgrowth of their belief that all objects, natural or man-made, had personhood and possessed a sentient spirit or yua and therefore deserved respect as individual beings. Ancient ivories embody cultural knowledge and continue to inspire Native artists today.
Of note, Katz highlights the success of a recent exhibit Gifts from the Ancestors, now at the Princeton University Art Museum. Just opened, this exhibit looks fantastic, presenting the fascinating, beautiful, and controversial ivory pieces from the far north. According to the website:
Gifts from the Ancestors highlights the unique and compelling archaeological art over past millennia from the Bering Strait region. The objects included on this website served as tools used for hunting, play, ritual, and domestic activities. They also reveal in their fine modeling and incised decoration a passion for embellishment. Contemporary Yup’ik people, whose lifeways and beliefs share many similarities with those of the ancient peoples of Bering Strait, explain this penchant for “dressing” artifacts in beautiful design and decoration as an outgrowth of their belief that all objects, natural or man-made, had personhood and possessed a sentient spirit or yua and therefore deserved respect as individual beings. Ancient ivories embody cultural knowledge and continue to inspire Native artists today.
Monday, October 05, 2009
Zubun
"Zubun" opened in the Ethnographic Museum in Belgrade on September 21st. With this exhibition the museum celebrates 108 years of its foundation. The exhibition consists of about 600 objects from museum’s collection, folk costumes from Slovenia, Croatia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Serbia, Montenegro, and Macedonia.
For us, a new word for the day: "zubun," according to the website, "a top garment vest, usually sleeveless, made of cloth, mostly in white color. People wore it during the whole year, and it was really a necessary piece of clothes of cattle-breeders. Zubun was widely spread on Balkan Peninsula, and it was worn in combination with shirt, bodice and doublet. From region to region it has different length."
For us, a new word for the day: "zubun," according to the website, "a top garment vest, usually sleeveless, made of cloth, mostly in white color. People wore it during the whole year, and it was really a necessary piece of clothes of cattle-breeders. Zubun was widely spread on Balkan Peninsula, and it was worn in combination with shirt, bodice and doublet. From region to region it has different length."
Friday, October 02, 2009
Fellowship for Native Scholars
Anne Ray Fellowship for Native Scholars 2010–2011
The Anne Ray Fellowship is awarded by the School for Advanced Research (SAR) to an established Native scholar in the arts, humanities, or social sciences who has a commitment to providing mentorship to recent Native graduates or graduate students. In addition to working on their own research and writing projects, the Resident Scholar serves as a mentor to two Native interns working at the Indian Arts Research Center and helps guide their intellectual development while facilitating their engagement with other scholars on the SAR campus. The fellowship includes a $40,000 stipend, a campus residence, an office, and an allowance account. The fellowship period is September 1 through May 31 with an application deadline of November 1. Scholars with experience in the museum field or arts are encouraged to apply.
Applications must include:
•Application form.
• Statement identifying experience and interest in serving as mentor, not to exceed three double pages.
• An abstract, not to exceed 150 words, describing the purpose, goals, and objectives of the applicant’s research project on which they will work at SAR.
• A proposal, no more than four double-spaced pages in length. The proposal should describe what is to be accomplished during the fellowship year, the status of the applicant’s research on the topic, and the significance of the work.
• A short bibliography, not to exceed one single-spaced page, of references cited in the proposal.
• Curriculum vitae, not to exceed four single-spaced pages.
• Three letters of recommendation not to exceed two single-spaced pages in length each, with one letter from a former or current student. Letters must be received by November 1. Applicants are responsible for ensuring that references send their letters on time.
• A brief statement of tribal affiliation.
Scholars receiving the Anne Ray Resident Scholar Fellowship will commit a portion of their time to providing mentorship to two full-time interns on a weekly basis; participating in weekly colloquia; providing two public presentations on their research; and participating in the monthly Indian Arts Research Center Speaker Series.
The application deadline is November 1. For application form and submission specifications go to scholar.app.sarweb.org or contact Scholar Programs at scholar@sarsf.org or (505) 954-7201.
The Anne Ray Fellowship is awarded by the School for Advanced Research (SAR) to an established Native scholar in the arts, humanities, or social sciences who has a commitment to providing mentorship to recent Native graduates or graduate students. In addition to working on their own research and writing projects, the Resident Scholar serves as a mentor to two Native interns working at the Indian Arts Research Center and helps guide their intellectual development while facilitating their engagement with other scholars on the SAR campus. The fellowship includes a $40,000 stipend, a campus residence, an office, and an allowance account. The fellowship period is September 1 through May 31 with an application deadline of November 1. Scholars with experience in the museum field or arts are encouraged to apply.
Applications must include:
•Application form.
• Statement identifying experience and interest in serving as mentor, not to exceed three double pages.
• An abstract, not to exceed 150 words, describing the purpose, goals, and objectives of the applicant’s research project on which they will work at SAR.
• A proposal, no more than four double-spaced pages in length. The proposal should describe what is to be accomplished during the fellowship year, the status of the applicant’s research on the topic, and the significance of the work.
• A short bibliography, not to exceed one single-spaced page, of references cited in the proposal.
• Curriculum vitae, not to exceed four single-spaced pages.
• Three letters of recommendation not to exceed two single-spaced pages in length each, with one letter from a former or current student. Letters must be received by November 1. Applicants are responsible for ensuring that references send their letters on time.
• A brief statement of tribal affiliation.
Scholars receiving the Anne Ray Resident Scholar Fellowship will commit a portion of their time to providing mentorship to two full-time interns on a weekly basis; participating in weekly colloquia; providing two public presentations on their research; and participating in the monthly Indian Arts Research Center Speaker Series.
The application deadline is November 1. For application form and submission specifications go to scholar.app.sarweb.org or contact Scholar Programs at scholar@sarsf.org or (505) 954-7201.
Thursday, October 01, 2009
Ethics and Information Technology
Initially, this call for papers seemed a bit far afield for Museum Anthropology. But, then, we got thinking about the discussion surrounding open source, and began considering the ways in which these technologies intersect with questions of ethics. Perhaps these issues should deeply concern museums because they hold and channel information to different communities in different ways. From a news release:
Call for Papers for a Special Issue with Ethics and Information Technology on “ICT and the capability approach”
Some influential theories of distributive justice, fairness and equality, like that of John Rawls, discuss fair distribution in terms of shares of primary goods available to people. The main criticism of Amartya Sen and Martha Nussbaum of these views is that it is not the goods that are ultimately important, but what they allow us to do and be, the kind of lives they enable us to live. Giving everyone a laptop or some other piece of technology is no good in and by itself, according to their ‘capability approach’.
Some people will be able to make good use of it and increase their level of functioning, whereas others who are for example illiterate or do not have access to a reliable power supply cannot possibly convert their possession of this particular technology into anything useful in their lives. Human functioning and capabilities are therefore at the centre of the work of Nussbaum and Sen. The capability approach is thoroughly normative, since it demands that people are brought to a minimum level of capabilities necessary to lead flourishing lives.
Although the capability approach has been widely adopted in development thinking, hardly any work has been done on the interrelations between the capability approach and technology. This is remarkable, since technology by definition aims at expanding human capabilities. In recent years, however, publications have started emerging on this topic, most of them concerned with ICT and more in particular with ICT and developing countries. A possible reason for this may be the high expectations regarding the positive contributions ICT will make in issues concerning development and global justice. One of the icons of ‘ICT for Development’ or e-development is the poor farmer in a developing country who now has access to crop prizes thanks to his mobile phone and as a result can eliminate the middlemen. The capability approach may be able to provide a lens through which such ICT applications can be critically scrutinized and evaluated.
In this special issue of Ethics and Information Technology the relevance and implications of the capability approach for ICT will further be explored, though not merely confined to the context of developing countries. We invite contributions concerning both theoretical and applied issues from all over the world and with relevance for either Western countries, developing countries, or both. Some of the issues that can be addressed are the following:
Call for Papers for a Special Issue with Ethics and Information Technology on “ICT and the capability approach”
Some influential theories of distributive justice, fairness and equality, like that of John Rawls, discuss fair distribution in terms of shares of primary goods available to people. The main criticism of Amartya Sen and Martha Nussbaum of these views is that it is not the goods that are ultimately important, but what they allow us to do and be, the kind of lives they enable us to live. Giving everyone a laptop or some other piece of technology is no good in and by itself, according to their ‘capability approach’.
Some people will be able to make good use of it and increase their level of functioning, whereas others who are for example illiterate or do not have access to a reliable power supply cannot possibly convert their possession of this particular technology into anything useful in their lives. Human functioning and capabilities are therefore at the centre of the work of Nussbaum and Sen. The capability approach is thoroughly normative, since it demands that people are brought to a minimum level of capabilities necessary to lead flourishing lives.
Although the capability approach has been widely adopted in development thinking, hardly any work has been done on the interrelations between the capability approach and technology. This is remarkable, since technology by definition aims at expanding human capabilities. In recent years, however, publications have started emerging on this topic, most of them concerned with ICT and more in particular with ICT and developing countries. A possible reason for this may be the high expectations regarding the positive contributions ICT will make in issues concerning development and global justice. One of the icons of ‘ICT for Development’ or e-development is the poor farmer in a developing country who now has access to crop prizes thanks to his mobile phone and as a result can eliminate the middlemen. The capability approach may be able to provide a lens through which such ICT applications can be critically scrutinized and evaluated.
In this special issue of Ethics and Information Technology the relevance and implications of the capability approach for ICT will further be explored, though not merely confined to the context of developing countries. We invite contributions concerning both theoretical and applied issues from all over the world and with relevance for either Western countries, developing countries, or both. Some of the issues that can be addressed are the following:
- Case studies about specific ICTs / capabilities / groups of people / contexts
- The capability approach and the digital divide
- System level effects of ICT and the capability approach
- Designing ICT for human capabilities
- The capability approach and evaluation of e-development projects
- Complexity of capability effects of ICT: short versus long term, enabling as well as constraining, etc.
- The tension between agency versus well-being in ICT4D practise
- ICT, objective capabilities, subjective valuations & adaptive preferences
- The capability approach, participation and ICT
- The capability approach, ICT and (neutrality towards) the good lifeICT and individual / collective / external capabilities
- Applied ontology of ICT and human capabilities
The editors at Ethics and Information Technology are seeking articles for a special issue in this area. Submissions will be double‐blind refereed for relevance to the theme as well as academic rigor and originality. High quality articles not deemed to be sufficiently relevant to the special issue may be considered for publication in a subsequent non-themed issue. Closing date for submissions: February 28nd, 2010.
To submit your paper, please use the online submission system, to be found at www.editorialmanager.com/etin. For any questions or information regarding this special issue, please contact the managing editor, Noëmi Manders‐Huits, N.L.J.L.Manders‐Huits@tudelft.nl
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)