Public archaeology and political dynamics in Portugal: A reply to Bednarik

Abstract

Since the Coa affair, in 1995, hardly a month has passed without some vitriolic attack on my person, my work or on Portuguese archaeology in general appearing somewhere in a journal, a newsletter or a website corporate-owned by Bednarik or by his International Federation of Rock Art Organizations (IFRAO) associates. Given their academic and scientific irrelevance, I have never responded before. I do so now for the first time because, to my knowledge, this is also the first time that this kind of writing has been submitted to an independent peer-reviewed journal such as Public Archaeology. In this string of attacks, I have been variously accused, among other things, of systematic professional vandalism (Jaffe, 1996), of deliberate destruction of the scientific evidence that would prove me wrong (Bednarik, 1996) and of being the undertaker of the Guadiana rock art (http:// mc2.vicnet.net.au/users/guadiana/). I have made myself available in the past to any kind of investigation of these charges by any recognized international association of professional archaeologists (such as the World Archaeological Congress (WAC) or the European Association of Archaeologists (EAA)) or by any recognized international organization devoted to heritage protection (such as the International Council on Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS) or the International Centre for the Study of the Preservation and Restoration of Cultural Properties (ICCROM)). That no such investigation has taken place, in spite of the seriousness of the charges (all the more so since they relate to a period during which I held the highest administrative responsibilities for the Coa rock art and Portuguese archaeology as a whole), is in itself an indicator of the credibility of the accusers. Under the guise of a review of recent developments in Portuguese public archaeology, Bednarik's paper is simply another episode in his personal campaign against Portugal and myself (in fact, a significant percentage of the paper is simply the ipsis verbis reproduction of his IFRA 0 report no. 29 (Bednarik, 2002)). I am well aware that those unacquainted with the situation will find it hard to believe that this is the real motivation of a person who likes to present himself as God's Gift to Rock Art. That is why, to begin my response, I have to expose the fabricated nature of Bednarik's narrative and his ignorance of the reality he proposes to discuss. Bynecessity, the initial section of my response follows the format of statement-counterstatement. Bednarik's statements are numbereed, followed by my comments or corrections, which also provide the factual base through which, at the end, I suggest an explanation for Bednarik's behaviour and offer my own overview of the broader significance of recent developments in Portuguese public archaeology. Given the limited space available here, this overview is brief, but I remain at the disposal of the editor of Public Archaeology to provide a more extended review, should that be considered of interest to the journal's readership.