你在这里

谈判文化:遗产,所有权和知识产权

谈判文化:遗产,所有权和知识产权

Laetitia La Follette编辑。 Pp。 viii +207。马萨诸塞州大学出版社,阿默斯特,2013年。22.95美元。 ISBN 978-1-62534-008-5(纸)。

评论者

谈判文化:遗产,所有权和知识产权,探索拥有事物的概念—例如档案文件和个人文件,人工制品,DNA,人类遗骸,语言,口述历史和互联网。在一年的时间里(2006–2007), the Interdisciplinary Seminar in the Humanities and Fine Arts (ISHA) held at the University of Massachusetts Amherst focused 上 questions surrounding how things are owned, why they are owned, who 拥有 them, and whether or not things can be owned. This interdisciplinary dialogue took place in a different global climate—preArab uprising, 预先–Syrian civil war, 预先-Daesh, 预先–2010 Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA) amendments, and 预先–explosion of digital humanities. Yet a feeling of prophecy in the topics and themes resonates today. Some of the references are dated, but the volume largely stands the test of time and is a very useful reference for 上 going deliberations 上 所有权 and culture in the past and 预先sent.

与文化和谈判有关的传统主题贯穿其中:文化的归还,文化的产生和转化方式,文化在权力动态和不平等中的作用以及文化在国家建设和对外关系中的政治作用。这本书的贡献包括熟悉的内容,例如《古代一人》中的沃特金斯和《福莱特》 ’s chapter 上 Marion True and the Getty, and the more unusual, including Subramaniam 上 DNA and Pi-Sunyer and DiGiacomo 上 the Salamanca Papers. The compendium of case studies expands our understanding of culture and its deployment as an identity-forming tool that is subject to contested claims of 所有权, and to frequent need for negotiation.

在出色的介绍中,La Follette提供了研讨会的基础—争夺文化主张—by foregrounding the chapters from activists, anthropologists, archaeologists, art historians, and linguists. The book proposes models for thinking about 所有权 and intellectual property centered 上 collaboration, dialogue, and conciliation. To various practitioners of public, or community, archaeology these are not novel concepts (see Wobst [ch. 5]), but this volume 预先sents new ways of thinking about negotiating over things (culture).

本章分为三个部分,分别检查争端,保护和保存以及团体所有权。沃特金斯(第1章)通过对“古代人”(Kennewick Man)和NAGPRA的考虑,考虑了法律形式的事物如何统治像人类遗骸之类的事物。沃特金斯(Watkins)建议,NAGPRA使所有权水域蒙混而不是澄清。 “古代一号”案使科学家与土著居民抗衡,很好地说明了沃伯斯特’s(第5章)的论点是,科学考古学的分离使从业人员与当地人口分离,从而引发了所有权争议。自研讨会以来,新法规(2010年)已阐明如何处理无法识别文化的人类遗骸(“古代一号”法院案件中的关键问题)。 《 2010年规则》建议开展更大范围,更广泛的部落合作与磋商,这可能在最初的法院案件中产生不同的结果。 2016年,将具有9000年历史的骨骼中的DNA与科尔维尔保留区的同盟部落成员进行了比较,证实了遗传相似性,满足了NAGPRA的文化背景。这是否意味着不再需要与远古祖先进行谈判?关于谁的辩论“owns”人体遗骸继续存在,使科学与本土知识偏爱的口述历史和传统相抵触。关于谈判“ownership”这些东西(法律,人类遗体和神圣物品)仍然存在。

考虑到前盖蒂策展人马里恩·特雷(Marion True)“然而,缺少的是,人们对美国馆藏中的那些古物的态度发生了变化。”(39),但自研讨会以来,博物馆,收藏家和拍卖行的态度和行为发生了巨大变化。自2006年以来有明显改善–2007年,对于寻求归还西方演员遗体的国家。专业组织已经改革了指导方针和政策。真正’的审判于2010年结束,没有任何判断,但这个先例在博物馆和艺术界引起了不寒而栗,形成了当前在事物上的合作,和解与协作的氛围。

许多贡献者表明,关于事物的谈判已陷入政治。佛朗哥从共和党团体和个人手中没收的个人和机构文件’西班牙内战结束后的军队允许Pi-Sunyer和DiGiacomo(第3章)证明政府以明显的政治方式使用遗产来平息,合法化,定义和推进关于过去的特定叙述。那些试图找回没收的档案文件的人被赦免,以换取Pi-Sunyer和DiGiacomo所谓的政治失忆—追求民主的故意遗忘(77)。 2012年,第一批文件归还给所有者,但成千上万份文件仍留在萨拉曼卡,这是有关民族叙事,回忆和遗忘的持续谈判过程的一部分。

Bollier (ch. 7), Speas (ch. 4), Subramanian (ch. 6), and Wobst (ch. 5) provide fascinating insights into owning tangible (DNA, digital commons) and intangible (intellectual property, indigenous language) things. Can they be owned? Should they be owned? Is 所有权 adopted by nations and individuals in order to conform to a western construct in the age of globalization? In addressing these queries, the contributors turn to professional responsibilities and the ways in which experts, more specifically anthropologists, often fail to acknowledge that indigenous things (tangible and intangible) were traditionally viewed largely as existing in the public domain. In order to encourage shared stewardship, both Bollier and Wobst contend that the first step toward greater consultation and collaboration is a commitment to a common interest—the care and consideration of things from the past. Wobst goes further with this idea of a common interest for a common good by suggesting that the 所有权 of things should serve the universal collective rather than the profession (126).

There is no single legal or technical solution to the complexity of the owning of things, but this volume provides stimulating case studies 上 considerations of negotiation, 所有权, and things. Property (digital, cultural, and intellectual) is an integral element of communities past, 预先sent, and future, and in order to ensure its survival, boundaries need to be transcended (Clingman [afterword]). In an excellent summation, Clingman avers that interdisciplinarity is not a thing but a practice, and the chapters in this volume demonstrate that future negotiations over culture should rely 上 interdisciplinarity, shared stewardship, and collaboration between equal partners.

莫拉格·克塞尔(Morag M.
DePaul University
mkersel@depaul.edu

的书评 谈判文化:遗产,所有权和知识产权,由Laetitia La Follette编辑

评论者:Morag M. Kersel

美国考古学杂志 卷121,第1号(2017年1月)

在线发布于 www.ajaonline.org/book-review/3359

DOI:10.3764 / ajaonline1211.Kersel

添加新评论

纯文本

  • 网页地址和电子邮件地址自动变为链接。
  • 行和段被自动切分。