ISSN: 2171-6315
Volume 4 - 2014
Editors:
Jaime Almansa Sánchez & Elena Papagiannopoulou
www.arqueologiapublica.es
AP:
Online Journal in Public Archaeology
AP: Online Journal in Public Archaeology is edited by JAS Arqueología S.L.U.
ISSN: 2171-6315
Volume 4 - 2014
Editors:
Jaime Almansa Sánchez and Elena Papagiannopoulou
www.arqueologiapublica.es
AP:
Online Journal in Public Archaeology
AP: Online Journal in Public Archaeology is edited by JAS Arqueología S.L.U.
INDEX
Editorial
1
Jaime Almansa Sánchez and Elena Papagiannopoulou
Forum:
The looting of archaeological heritage (Part II)
5
Sabita Nadesan, Ivana Carina Jofré Luna & Sam Hardy
Forum:
Archaeology as a tool for peacemaking
31
Adi Keinan-Schoonbaert, Ghattas J. Sayej & Laia Colomer Solsona
Roșia Montană: When heritage meets social activism,
politics and community identity
51
Alexandra Ion
Using Facebook to build a community in the Conjunto
Arqueológico de Carmona (Seville, Spain)
61
Ignacio Rodríguez Temiño & Daniel González Acuña
In Search of Atlantis:
Underwater Tourism between Myth and Reality
95
Marxiano Melotti
The past is a horny country
Porn movies and the image of archaeology
117
Jaime Almansa Sánchez
Points of You
The forum that could not wait for a year to happen
#OccupyArchaeology
133
Yannis Hamilakis, with a response by Francesco Iaconno
Review
Cultures of Commodity Branding
David Andrés Castillo
137
Review
Cultural Heritage in the Crosshairs
143
Ignacio Rodríguez Temiño
Review
US Cultural Diplomacy and Archaeology
147
Ignacio Rodríguez Temiño
Review
Archaeological intervention on historical necropolises
151
Rafael Greenberg
Review
Arqueológicas. Hacia una Arqueología Aplicada
155
Xurxo Ayán Vila
Review
Breaking New Ground
161
Doug Rocks-MacQueen
Review
Cultural Heritage and the Challenge of Sustainability
163
Jaime Almansa Sánchez
Review
Archaeology in Society and Daily Live
Dawid Kobiałka
167
AP: Online Journal in Public Archaeology
Volume 4 - 2014 p. 31
FORUM
ARCHAEOLOGY AS A TOOL FOR PEACEMAKING
Shortly after publishing Volume 3, a colleague submitted a very
interesting paper about the value of archaeology as a tool for peace
between Israel and Palestine. As it passed the review process, we
thought it would be interesting to open the topic for debate and
discussion in order to support what we understand as a fair cause.
Thus, we created this second forum in close relation to the main
topics (looting and conlict) and asked for contributions by different
authors. Three of them responded and that was enough for us to
open a discussion on a very relevant topic for public archaeology
based on a critical experience of current interest.
Weeks passed by and just as we were trying to close Volume 4
this summer, the main paper was withdrawn: the author was not
sure anymore about the content of a paper that had already passed
the peered review—and the forum was built on it—and decided
to withdraw a contribution that we, as editors, found extremely
interesting.
The paper aimed to delve into the current situation of archaeology
in the region and its ideological use, as well as the shift could/
should be made in order to use it as a tool for peacebuilding and
local development. Some ideas and examples where shown and
the answers in this forum with offer some more light about them.
Timing is essential in research and June was the beginning of a
very dificult time in the region this forum focuses on. We are not
going to question the reasons for this withdrawal, but we need to
take a moment to explain why the responses are still here and why
we want this topic to be part of the journal, especially at this time.
Public archaeology is a political tool: We are not objective, we
do not want to be objective, and this is a Social Science with an
agenda. When Stottman asked if archaeologists could change the
world (Stottman 2010) we answered YES! The use of archaeology
32 - FORUM - Archaeology as a tool for peacemaking
as a political tool is older than archaeology itself. The past serves
a purpose and we have a word in this as professionals (McGuire
2010). The conlict between Israel and Palestine has been constantly
escalating since the foundation of the new state in the 1940s,
causing only destruction and death for both sides.
All of us in the editorial team wish to condemn this violence in
the region and state that education and archaeology are one of the
very few tools for understanding the conlict and helping towards a
peaceful solution.
In the following texts, you will ind the views of three researchers
with expertise in the topic, in relation to the main paper that,
unluckily, you will not be able to read, and due to respect to the
withdrawal we will not reproduce further. There is no need for more
context than the news and the fact that we, as public archaeologists,
have a responsibility to the present. However, have a look at this
video, if you have not done so yet.
References
McGuire, R. 2010. Archaeology as political action. University of
California Press.
Stottman, M.J. (Ed.) 2010. Archaeologists as activists. Can
Archaeologists save the world? University of Alabama Press.
http://vimeo.com/50531435
FORUM - Archaeology as a tool for peacemaking - 33
Using Archaeological Information to Promote Peaceful Coexistence in Israel/Palestine
Adi KEINAN-SCHOONBAERT
University College London
The issue of the Israeli-Palestinian conlict and role of archaeology
in helping sustain it has been thoroughly discussed, especially
in the last decade. The social, ideological, religious and cultural
dissonances present in today’s Israel/Palestine are important
contributing factors behind this intractable conlict. Some of these
disparities are closely linked with issues of archaeology, history,
and cultural heritage. Ongoing ideological and political clashes to
control the present and the past of this region have had direct
implications for archaeological remains, practices and management.
For example, archaeological sites are strongly affected by largescale looting, as well as by the construction of the separation barrier,
military operations and smaller-scale vandalism. The deinition,
protection and preservation of archaeological and heritage sites
are also inluenced to a great extent by political instability, poor
law enforcement and ambiguity in management responsibilities.
The management and interpretation of archaeological sites may
also suffer from ‘cultural appropriation’ and biased presentation to
the public.
The coexistence of diverse historical narratives and different
prioritisations and valuations of cultural heritage has had a
substantial impact on how archaeology and heritage are perceived
and interpreted—and too often archaeological convictions are
used as weapons in the ight for historical legitimacy. However,
archaeology does not always have to drive a wedge between
Israelis and Palestinians—it actually has a great potential to do just
the opposite, and create a positive change towards reconciliation.
Various ways to use archaeology to bridge gaps between both
sides and to promote peacemaking in the region have already been
suggested and implemented in the past. These include, for example,
community archaeological projects, alternative tourism, and joint
archaeological groups engaging in discussions on archaeology.
There is yet another aspect of archaeology that can transform the
34 - FORUM - Archaeology as a tool for peacemaking
way in which local communities perceive and understand it, and
that is archaeological data, information, or knowledge.
Archaeological data has been systematically acquired in Israel/
Palestine since the nineteenth century. The region has been
extensively surveyed and excavated mainly by European and
American archaeologists, to be followed by Israeli and Palestinian
ones, resulting in a series of listings and descriptions of numerous
archaeological sites. Many of these archaeological inventories,
or databases, are conceived to sum up our knowledge on the
archaeology and history of the region. And, just as other facets of
archaeology have been affected by the political atmosphere and
the socio-political reality, so did data collection and the creation of
archaeological inventories.
In order to understand just how the creation of archaeological
knowledge has been inluenced by the political circumstances in
Israel/Palestine, it is important to consider the context in which
archaeological data collection has taken place in the region since
its inception. In the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries,
archaeological practice took place in a colonial fashion—almost
always by Western foreigners, and according to what they considered
important or interesting to investigate. In the case of Palestine, the
main interest was the bible—the Old and New Testaments—and
any archaeological sites that these scriptures may have referred
to. As such, cultural knowledge production has been a relection
of powerful, modern, Western societies who remained unaware of
the priorities of indigenous communities, minority groups and less
well-resourced societies. The dominance of Western archaeologists
has had signiicant implications for archaeological practice, and is
also well relected in the types of data prioritised to be collected—
creating and sustaining an imbalanced control over archaeological
knowledge production.
This historical imbalance between the colonisers and the colonised
has been gradually inherited by today’s Israel and the Occupied
Palestinian Territories. Jewish archaeological societies and institutions
had been active since the beginning of the twentieth century, to be
followed by Israeli ones after the establishment of the State of Israel
in 1948. Israeli archaeologists have been working in the West Bank
since its occupation in 1967, conducting exhaustive archaeological
FORUM - Archaeology as a tool for peacemaking - 35
surveys and hundreds of excavations—endeavours which entailed
mass collection of archaeological data. Many of these projects have
been conducted with Israeli interests and agendas in mind—namely
the research of biblical (Bronze and Iron Ages) and Jewish (Persian,
Hellenistic and Roman periods) archaeological sites. Large-scale
Palestinian archaeological and cultural heritage projects have been
taking place primarily since the mid-1990s, after the establishment
of the Palestinian National Authority. Some of these would try and
shift the prevalent focus on biblical archaeology, and concentrate
instead on Islamic remains or the archaeology and ethnography of
the more recent past, combined with research on local traditions and
ways of life. However, to this day, there is still an evident asymmetry
between the sheer quantities of data collected and interpreted
by Israelis and Palestinians, and each side has limited access to
archaeological data generated by the other.
In today’s Israel/Palestine, both nations practice archaeology
in isolation. There is no collaboration, no partnership, and no
data sharing, in a region that is geographically, historically and
archaeologically continuous. While archaeological projects and
other cultural heritage endeavours generally adhere to high
scientiic standards and professional methodologies, the nature of
these projects, their objectives and motivations, may greatly vary.
Since many of such projects, namely archaeological surveys and
excavations, include data collection and the creation of inventories,
these too are affected by certain agendas and research priorities.
And in turn, these seemingly ‘inal’ corpuses of archaeological
knowledge have a signiicant impact on their audiences.
One way to try and amend this reality and create a positive
change using archaeology is, in my view, through the reconsideration of archaeological knowledge. When it comes to
motivations, methodologies and outcomes of different types of data
collection practices, it is highly important to encourage relexivity,
transparency and accountability. The glaring imbalance of power
between Israeli and Palestinian institutions should be addressed in
various ways, by a re-examination and re-evaluation of disciplinal
practices such as research, surveys, excavations, interpretation
and presentation of archaeology and cultural heritage, in order to
ensure the inclusion of different narratives and cultural values.
36 - FORUM - Archaeology as a tool for peacemaking
While today’s archaeological practices are generally more
relexive and self-critical than they used to be, this should be
expanded to the more speciic practices of documentation and
recording. Professional archaeologists should be aware of their role
as mediators and interpreters of cultural knowledge, as they shape
heritage records and have a signiicant impact on the information
being passed on to posterity. Archaeological inventories can never
be objective—it is impossible to collect data ‘objectively’, as choices
and decisions are always being made in the process. However,
being transparent about one’s own research agendas and interests
is taking an important step towards trust building.
Another step in this direction would be promoting accessibility to
information—making archaeological data as accessible as possible.
There is a general conviction that archaeological and heritage
knowledge is universal and belongs to everyone, and the prominent
and the popular movement of ‘open data’ also asserts that data
should be available to anyone for free and without restrictions.
Therefore, by facilitating access to data, and by promoting the
exchange of archaeological and cultural heritage information, we
will achieve higher levels of transparency and accountability, and
encourage mutual understanding, respect and trust.
Archaeologists and heritage practitioners are capable of
transforming data collection and dissemination practices into
positive socio-political driving forces, by taking more inclusive,
responsible, critical and ethical approaches towards the study and
interpretation of the past. Particularly in a region such as Israel/
Palestine, professional archaeologists should be more aware
of their ability to promote mutual conidence and trust and to
encourage dialogue between Israeli and Palestinian organisations
and communities. Archaeological and cultural heritage knowledge
is indeed a resource that can facilitate a peaceful co-existence,
and I am hopeful that archaeologists in the region would use this
resource in a positive and constructive manner.
FORUM - Archaeology as a tool for peacemaking - 37
Palestinian archaeology between political conlicts and
peace process
Ghattas Jeries SAYEJ
Vest-Agder County Council
Kristiansand, Norway
gjs@vaf.no
Although many archaeologists would like to believe that
separating archaeology from ideology and politics is achievable,
reality indicates something else. It is almost impossible to separate
them, particularly in countries where political conlicts are hotspot
issues, such as in cases concerning the Holy Land. The question is
how to tackle this matter? Do we need to exploit archaeology to
prove or disprove the right of existence for different ethnic groups
or religions? Do we need to be a part of expanding the conlicts
that already exist in the Holy Land, and thus create more hatred
and distrust for generations to come? In this brief discussion, I
will relect around this disputed matter and on how we can use
archaeology to build bridges instead of barriers.
Archaeology as victim
The inluence of colonial and nationalistic archaeology has shaped
cultural heritage in the Holy Land throughout the past century. After
the establishment of the state of Israel, the history of Palestine
has been rewritten to adequately it into the Zionist agenda.
Some Israeli archaeologists have paid more attention to certain
archaeological layers and neglected others. Some of them have not
been interested in preserving the complete cultural heritage of the
country as a record for all humanity, and have instead focused only
on the remains relevant to Jewish history and traditions. Those
in political power have maneuvered the cultural heritage of the
country as they wish, without taking into consideration the vast
majority of the native inhabitants who still live in their homeland.
38 - FORUM - Archaeology as a tool for peacemaking
Palestinian archaeology
During the past two decades, a new generation of Palestinian
archaeologists has emerged and is fostering awareness and
spreading knowledge among Palestinians (see Sayej 2010). These
archaeologists, however, are divided into three major groups:
academics, NGOs and governmental bodies. Instead of working
towards a common goal, these groups tend not to cooperate
well, most likely due to the fact that they consider each other as
competitors for funding and power.
Thus, it is very important to work hard in order to achieve a
common goal of protecting the cultural heritage of Palestine as
a universal heritage and not as a source of income for different
organizations.
Furthermore, the Palestinian territories are divided into three
major parts: Gaza, which is under the control of Hamas; Areas
A and B of the West Bank, which are under the control of the
Palestinian Authority; and the rest of the West Bank (Area C and East
Jerusalem), which is still under the control of Israel.1 The current
political division of the Palestinian territories relects negatively on
the cultural heritage of the entire nation. Those who are in the Gaza
Strip have almost no contact with their counterparts in the West
Bank and vice versa. The Palestinian Authority in the West Bank
has no control over the vast majority of the West Bank, which is
controlled by the Israeli Authority. The Staff Oficer for Archaeology
of the Civil Administration of Judea and Samaria, who controls
all archaeological sites and activities in most of the West Bank
(area C), does not cooperate with the Palestinians. In this lack of
political stability, looting of archaeological sites has lourished and
is therefore one of the major challenges to the cultural heritage of
the entire country. Another major problem is Israeli settlers who
are using archaeology as a tool to prove their roots to the land.
Subsequently, how can we overcome all these obstacles, or at
least ind a way to get out of this downward spiral? It seems to
me that we as archaeologists and social scientists need to do the
following:
1 The political division of the West Bank has been discussed elsewhere (see Sayej
2010).
FORUM - Archaeology as a tool for peacemaking - 39
1. Political divisions among Palestinians
Palestinian archaeologists need to cooperate together
beyond the geographical and political divisions. We need to
be more open and talk to each other to establish a common
understanding regardless of who is controlling what and who
gets more funding. We need to consider each other as partners
in order to achieve our common goal of protecting the cultural
heritage of the Holy Land, not only as our own heritage, but
also as world heritage. The abundance of technology today
links people together regardless of where they live in the world,
and thus the geo-political barrier is not an excuse anymore.
2. Political divisions between the Palestinians and the Israelis
This issue is even more problematic due to the fact that
archaeology has been used in Israel to support the current
occupation of the West Bank (e.g. Trigger 1989: 183-184).
In a neighborhood of Jerusalem called Silwan, a right-wing
Jewish settler organization called Elad controls most of
the archaeological excavations in the old city including the
Silwan neighborhood. This organization is led by ex-Israeli
commando David Be’eri, and has the backing of the Israeli
Prime Minister’s ofice, the municipality of Jerusalem, and the
vaunted Israeli Antiquities Authority (IAA). The organization’s
aim is best expressed in a religious website’s 2007 interview
with development director Doron Speilman. He gestures
toward Silwan and says: “Our goal is to turn all this land you
see behind you into Jewish lands” (McGirk 2010; also see
Greenberg and Keinan 2007, 2009). This kind of archaeological
activity is destructive and should be stopped sooner rather
than later.
Other Israeli organizations, such as Emek Shaveh, have a wide
reach and are working for advocacy and to raise awareness
(Hanna this volume). This organization has very high ethical
standards and is well accepted locally and internationally. These
kinds of organizations are welcomed by both nations and can
contribute to building bridges toward a common understanding
of protecting cultural heritage and using archaeology as a tool
for co-existence between the two nations.
40 - FORUM - Archaeology as a tool for peacemaking
3. Looting
Archaeologists should play a positive role in preventing looting
and illicit trade in antiquities. Generally speaking, one could
say that if trade in antiquities is outlawed, then dealers are less
able to operate freely. Looting from archaeological sites will
decrease if looters lose the motivation to dig. Archaeologists
are the bridge between the past and the present and can
work to change perceptions and actions for future generations
to come. The goal of archaeologists should be to make local
societies and governments understand the importance of
cultural heritage.
When we are able to do so, then we can stand together against
those who are using archaeology as a tool to it their agenda.
Conclusion
Cultural heritage among both Israeli and Palestinian societies
should transcend ideological concerns and emphasize the protection
of archaeological materials as a common heritage. Archaeologists
can protect the heritage of the Holy Land when they accept the
coexistence of other ethnic groups and religions in the region, not
only in the present day but also while documenting the archaeological
record. Archaeologists can use their expertise to create a mutual
understanding of the past regardless of ethnicity.
This part of the world has been a passage to the old civilizations
and dozens of ethnic groups and nationalities have been part of
creating its rich history. It is about time to realize, therefore, that
no ethnic group or sole religion has the right to live in prosperity
and suppress other ethnic or religious groups. Both Israeli and
Palestinians, have to realize the right of existence for the counterpart.
When future generations will cooperate with each other to build
a common future, then we have achieved our goal, not only as
archaeologists, but also as citizens of our respective nations.
References
Greenberg, R and Keinan, A. 2007. The present past of the IsraeliPalestinian conlict: Israeli archaeology in the West Bank and
East Jerusalem since 1967. Research papers: No.1: The S.
FORUM - Archaeology as a tool for peacemaking - 41
Daniel Abraham center for international and regional studies:
Tel Aviv University.
Greenberg, R and Keinan, A. 2009. Israeli archaeological activity
in the West Bank 1967-2007: A sourcebook. Jerusalem,
Ostracon, Emek Sheveh (CPB).
Hanna, A. L. This volume. Building a bridge to peace in the Holy
Land: the role of archaeology in peacemaking between Israel
and Palestine. [withdrawn]
McGirk, T. 2010.
Archaeology
in
Jerusalem:
Digging
up
trouble. Time magazine. Retrieved on 8 February 2010
from
WWW
[http://www.time.com/time/magazine/
article/0,9171,1957350,00.html#ixzz0fAgrfuJz].
Sayej, G. 2010.
Palestinian Archaeology: Knowledge, Awareness
and Cultural heritage. Present Pasts 2/1, 58-71. Doi:10.5334/
pp.22.
Trigger, B. 1989. A History of Archaeological Thought. Cambridge,
Cambridge University Press.
Is archaeology a useful tool for peacemaking in the Palestine/
Israel conlict?
Laia COLOMER
CEPAP-Autonomous University of Barcelona, Spain
Linnaeus University, Sweden
Andrew Leon Hanna’s article aims to encourage community-based
practices in the ield of public archaeology as a resource for building
bridges and strengthening bonds between the two communities in
conlict in the Levant. Following the theory of bottom-up change
(after Hemmer et al. 2006), he argues that building links of trust
42 - FORUM - Archaeology as a tool for peacemaking
among Palestinians and Israelis on the ground will help them solve
the political conlict in the region. He considers that archaeology
has been used to drive ideologies of ancient division when evidence
actually encourages unity. Moreover, he believes that archaeology
could be transformed into a tool for peacemaking. And to illustrate
this, he gives three examples of archaeo-tourism, community
archaeology, and inclusive archaeology. Hanna has very good
intentions, but I am afraid that he has presented us with a rather
oversimpliied view of the potentials of public archaeology practice
as a peace-building tool in this tortuous political conlict. Here, I
would like to focus my comments on two short issues which I think
are essential for the full development of the arguments made by
Hanna. Firstly, I will focus on the analysis of the Israeli-Palestine
context made by him because in political and war conlicts it is
necessary to have a full picture of the complex political—but also
human, historical, social and economic—background. Secondly, I
will focus on the theory of bottom-up change referenced by Hanna,
citing Bruce Hemmer, Paula Garb, Marlett Phillips and John L.
Graham (2006). I believe that the oversimpliied approach made
by Hanna toward these key issues may be the origin of his well
intended but, nonetheless, under-developed conclusions on the role
of public archaeology as a tool for peacemaking between Palestine
and Israel.
My irst comment here is on Hanna’s “snapshot” analysis of the
conlict in Israel/Palestine. Actually, it lacks the depth necessary to
understand the historical, current political and human situation in
Palestine and Israel. In the process of conlict resolution it is important
to understand and empathize with all the voices in conlict, and to do
so it is necessary to have a clear picture of the kaleidoscopic daily
dimensions of the conlict, and where violence is (just) the expedite
answer of a deeper and more complex human experience of social
and political injustice and fear. Hanna summarizes the Israel/Palestine
conlict in war victories (the 1948 and the 1967, and the 1989s
Intifada) and concludes that the conlict totalled 8,000 deaths in 1980,
added an extensive separation barrier (known as ‘the security fence’
by the Israelis, ‘the Apartheid wall’ by the Palestinians, or ‘the Wall’
by the International Court of Justice), and that the latest tensions
(2014) in Gaza produced more than 2,000 casualties. I am afraid the
conlict between Palestine and Israel is more than these casualties. A
FORUM - Archaeology as a tool for peacemaking - 43
deeper (though succinct) overview could be introduced in the article,
so the readers get a better picture of what are actually the core
characteristics of the conlict between these two communities: from
its historic roots in 1896 Herzl’s book Der Judenstaat until today’s
regional politics (both locally and internationally), but especially how
all this is affecting the daily lives of both Palestinians and Israelis (i.e.
human rights, the occupation, social justice, militarization of society).
Accordingly, I would suggest some key references, such as Beinin
and Stein 2006; Benvenisti 2000; Pappe 2006; Rotberg 2006; and
Scham et al. 2005, (to cite some among the long list of specialized
literature), and some useful online sources of information such as the
Foundation for Middle East Peace (http://www.fmep.org), PASSIA
(http://www.passia.org), B’Tselem (http://www.btselem.org), or
the Alternative Information Center (http://www.alternativenews.
org/english/), who have been working in the region for decades.
I would also add some more authoritative international journals,
such as Le Monde Diplomatique (http://www.monde-diplomatique.
fr/index/sujet/conlitisraeloarabe), the Palestine/Israeli Journal of
Politics, Economics & Culture (http://www.pij.org), the Journal of
Peacebuilding & Development (http://www.tandfonline.com/action/.
U5DVcBYijwI), and some other specialized journalists’ accounts,
such as Enderlin (2003). For those readers aware of the potentials of
drama and documentary ilms, I would recommend Promises (2001,
Bolado, Goldberg and Shapiro), Paradise Now (2005, Hanry AbuAssad), Lemon Tree (2008, Eran Riklis), Waltz with Bashir (2008,
Ari Folman), and Ajami (2009, Scandar Copti and Yaron Shani), on
the basis that these productions, beyond any academic analysis, are
able to add the empathic view necessary to embed the conlict to its
actual human dimension. Next to this, and because Hanna also gives
a snapshot on the power of archaeology in the existing ideology of
conlict and division, I would also like to suggest some of the classic
references on the role of archaeology in building up both the region’s
social, religious, and political imaginations, and the inspiration for
violent struggles over the territory and national-cultural landmarks:
Abu El-Haj 2001; Finkelstein and Silberman 2001; Glock 1994; Gori
2013; Greenberg and Keinan 2007; and Whitelam 1996. I hope that
by expanding the sources of information consulted by Hanna, the
reader can get a deeper and multi-perspective portrayal of the topic
under discussion, a necessary exercise for an accurate understanding
of the Israeli/Palestinian hostilities.
44 - FORUM - Archaeology as a tool for peacemaking
My second observation on Hanna’s article will address his underargued advocacy for the theory of bottom-up change (Hemmer et
al. 2006) as the most useful conlict resolution program for the
Israeli/Palestinian conlict. Hanna supports this theory and uses it
as his theoretical background for defending the grass-roots activism
of public archaeology in the present conlict’s resolution. However,
no arguments are given so that the reader may understand why
this theory is so radically different from other theories of conlict
analysis and resolution previously discussed (i.e. Deutsch and
Coleman 2000) or their updated revisions (i.e. Bercovitch et al.
2009; Ramsbotham et al. 2012; Wallensteen 2007). What are the
insights of the theory of Hemmer et al. in relation to other research
and evaluations on peacebuilding work (i.e. Reychler and Paffenholz
2001; Paffenholz 2010)? Why is this theory a useful tool for the
particular Israel/Palestine contention? And, more in detail, why,
applied to public archaeology, may this transform archaeology into
a key element in the regional grass-roots peace-building activism?
In summary, what makes the theory of bottom-up change so
special and useful to Hanna’s interest for arguing for the role of
archaeology in the peacemaking between Israel and Palestine?
It is clearer that today’s citizen activism has an important role in
democratizing local and international politics, and in certain regions,
such as the Levant, the grass-roots movement has played a crucial
role in building bridges of peace between communities in conlict.
Local initiatives deinitely have encouraged cooperation between
the Israeli and the Palestinian societies in conlict that essentially
had added the much needed channels for trust building. And public
archaeology can certainly be one of these trust-building bridges, as
Hanna believes and exempliies in three cases mentioned in his text
(MEJDI Tours, Lod Communal Archaeological Program and Emek
Shaveh). However, I think it is necessary to differentiate between
political solutions in the region (that is, the conlict resolution),
and the peace process necessary for a sustainable stability of two
societies involved (that is, the peacebuilding). In my opinion, this
is an essential aspect to differentiate when analysing any conlict
under discussion. The Israeli/Palestinian conlict is a political one
that needs political/diplomatic solutions (whether this involves a
more or less active citizen activism), but also has a human side
that deeply affects the social relationship between both countries’
FORUM - Archaeology as a tool for peacemaking - 45
citizens, the capacity of both societies to heal their own citizens
from hate and distrust (justice and reconciliation), and the
acceptance of the political resolution whatever this could be (posttrauma peace process). The political solution may inally involve
the acknowledgment of the two-states solution and accordingly the
recognition of the key issues in this conlict: the future status of
Jerusalem; the future of Palestinian refugees expelled from their
territories during 1948 and 1967 (they and their descendants
today total approximately four million people, 40% of today’s
Palestinians); the disposition of the Israeli settlements (about half
a million settlers in both authorized and unauthorized settlements
in the West Bank); the borders and nature of the Palestinian state
(the Green Line or pre-1967 borders) and accordingly the Israeli
security in the region; and the future of over one million Palestinians
living inside the Israeli borders (also see Finkelstein 2014). It had
not been a serious aim to solve those issues in any of the Israel/
Palestine international conferences; it is agreed nowadays that
those are the key issues to be solved if any real political conlict
resolution could be developed. In addition, in order to fulil this
political/diplomatic process, both societies will need to go through a
process of gaining reciprocal conidence (also called peace building
process), something not easy in the current situation. From the
1993 Oslo Accords to the 2000 Camp David Summit, politicians
had never really attained meaningful negotiations. Essentially, the
Oslo Agreements were not put into effect: the ive key ’inal status‘
issues of the conlict remained unsolved, and the violent occupation
of Gaza and the West Bank continued. Consequently, during the last
20 years of conlict, both the Israeli and the Palestinian societies
had experienced a dramatic shift to more extremist positions
which only helps to support violent and aggressive governmental
discourse and actions (e.g. suicide bombers, Hamas assassinations,
kidnapping of soldiers, military aggression, expansion of
settlements, threats on human security, and constraints to civilians’
health access, food supplies, and employment opportunities; e.g.
see Human Right Watch’s World Report 2014: Israel & Palestine
http://www.hrw.org/world-report/2014/country-chapters/israeland-palestine), and to wide attitudes of distrust and feelings of
adversary amongst each civilian population (Kaufman 1993).
Salem and Kaufman (2009: 439) noticed that the rationalization of
46 - FORUM - Archaeology as a tool for peacemaking
violence, including the justiication of its reactions, had been one
of the main problems not only in the political regional negotiations,
but especially in the grass-roots peace initiatives: “community
peacebuilders work within an occupier/occupied relationship and a
hostile environment. Violence breeds counter violence: this vicious
cycle makes peace work extremely dificult and often physically
dangerous. When civilians are targeted, the resulting trauma
becomes a fact of life. Such vulnerability generates feelings of
uncertainty, threat, and stress, which leads to an accumulation of
reciprocal hostility”. More interestingly, these authors recognised
in the same article that the lack of progress in oficial negotiations
had effectively put an increased burden on ordinary citizens to take
the initiative in building peace in their own habitat. The authors
argued then that the civil society (e.g. NGOs, professional groups,
social movements, charitable associations, intellectuals and artists,
etc.) needs to search for common grounds for the promotion of
peacebuilding relationships. This leads to what Salem and Kaufman
(2009) describe as the “sectorial peace” situation where the civil
society (re)creates all possible community bridges to ensure trustbuilding attitudes between the two societies as the only sustainable
relationship that can both endure the rigors of confrontational times,
and successfully hold the long-term political/diplomatic process. In
this sense, the community peacebuilding process becomes both a
sort of short—and medium—term survival for the involved societies,
and the ground for more imaginative ideas for the resolution of the
conlict (e.g. the formula ’land for peace‘).
Arguably, there is great potential in a theory of peacebuilding
that focuses on mutual understanding among people on the ground,
as it seems to be in Hemmer’s et al. theory of bottom-up change,
but little has been described in Hanna´s article, nor has this been
contextualized with reference to public archaeology practice.
Hanna’s article aims to be a practical exercise of how the theory of
bottom-up change can be successfully applied to a particular case
study (the Palestinian/Israeli conlict) using one particular ield of the
social sciences (public archaeology). He aims to demonstrate “how
citizen peacebuilders can create the democratic, social, cultural and
human capital necessary to effectively engage national level politics
by irst building peace and democracy at the grassroots and in local
politics” (Hemmer et al. 2006). However, further impact analysis
FORUM - Archaeology as a tool for peacemaking - 47
needs to be developed by Hanna to actually demonstrate that
public archaeology in the region holds that position of “specialized
citizen peacebuilding” organization that produces “mutually
reinforcing growth toward peace and democracy at all levels of
society” (Hemmer et al. 2006). The examples of public archaeology
practices described by Hanna are interesting on their own, as public
archaeology projects but also as entrepreneurial experiences in a
contested region where archaeological and historic narratives are
suffering from political tensions. They are surely generating critical
views on the actual situation of archaeology in the region, and in
doing so they are providing both critical views on the use of history
for political interests and bridges of dialogue between different
peoples and cultures in the region. In the process of building trustful
links among citizens, they could certainly help to frame a different
neighbourhood’s relationship in the region. They would certainly
help to provide the so needed empathic perspective on adversary/
neighbour’s opinions and necessities. Public archaeology in the
region is a necessary experience to develop and support the beneit
of friendly relationships among the contested communities: it has
a clear role in a playground where different views on the reality,
either past or present, could be discussed and perceived among
antagonists, and therefore an exercise of community practice in a
time and space of disputed lands. But I would appreciate having
more analytical tools to see both the effects of these practices
in relation to these aims, and how these initiatives are working
together with other bridge-building activities in the region under a
common vision of a sustainable peacebuilding process.
Finally, I would like to add that we need to also be realistic
and accept that public archaeology will not solve the “lack of
understanding between everyday Israeli and Palestinians”, as Hanna
naively summarizes as the “deeper issue beyond the conlict”. The
Israeli/Palestine conlict is actually much more complex than just a
lack of understanding. Public archaeology can certainly play a role
in the regional peacemaking process, as far as archaeologists aim
to be locally active political citizens, but it will be more effective if
it joints the regional peacebuilding camp, as described by Salem
and Kaufman (2009), and becomes another of the peace activities
working alongside other initiatives in the region (Kaufman et al.
2006).
48 - FORUM - Archaeology as a tool for peacemaking
References
Abu El-Haj, N. 2001. Facts on the Ground. Archaeological Practice
and Territorial Self-Fashioning in Israeli Society. Chicago:
The University of Chicago Press.
Benvenisti, M. 2000. Sacred Landscape. The buried history of the
Holy Land since 1948. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Beinin, J. & Stein, R.L. (eds.) 2006. The Struggle for Sovereignty.
Palestine and Israel, 1993-2005. Standford: Stanford
University Press.
Bercovitch, J., V. Kremenyuk & W. Zartman (eds.) 2009. The Sage
Handbook of Conlict Resolution. London: Sage.
Deutsch, M. & P. Coleman (eds.) 2000. The Handbook of Conlict
Resolution. New Haven: Yale University Press
Enderlin, C. 2003. Shattered Dreams. The Failure of the Peace
Process in the Middle East 1995-2002. New York: Other Press.
Finkelstein, J.S. 2014 “An Opening for Peace: Israelis, Palestinians
and the Two-State Solution” published by Foreign Policy
Research Institute, February 2014 (Source: http://www.fpri.
org/articles/2014/02/opening-peace-israelis-palestiniansand-two-state-solution )
Finkelstein, I. & Silberman, N. 2001. The Bible Unearthed.
Archaeology’s New Vision of Ancient Israeli and the Origin of
its Sacred Texts. New York: Simon & Schuster.
Glock, A. 1994. “Archaeology as cultural survival: the future of the
Palestinian past”, Journal of Palestinian Studies, 23(3): 70-84
Gori, M. 2013. “The Stones of Contention: The role of archaeological
heritage in the Israeli-Palestinian conlict”, Archeologies,
Journal of the World Archaeological Congress, 9(1): 213-229.
Greenberg, R. & Keinan, A. 2007. The Present Past of the IsraeliPalestinian Conlict: Israeli Archaeology in the West Bank
and East Jerusalem Since 1967. Tel Aviv: The S. Daniel
Abraham Center for International and Regional Studies, Tel
FORUM - Archaeology as a tool for peacemaking - 49
Aviv University. (Source: http://www.tau.ac.il/humanities/
abraham/publications/israeli_archaeology.pdf )
Kaufman, E. (1993) “The effect of war and occupation on the
Israeli society”, in E. Kaufman, S. Abed, and R. Rosthstein
(eds.) Democracy, Peace, and the Israeli/Palestinian Conlict.
Boulder: Lynne Rienner.
Kaufman, E., Salem, W. & Verhoeven, J. (eds.) 2006. Bridging
the Divide: Peacebuilding in the Israeli-Palestinain Conlict.
Boulder: Lynne Rienner
Paffenholz, T. 2010. Civil society and peace-building. Boulder:
Lynne Rienner Publications.
Pappe, I. 2006. A History of Modern Palestine. One Land, Two
Peoples. Second edition. Cambridge: CUP.
Ramsbotham, O., Woodhouse, T., & Miall, H. 2012. Contemporary
Conlict Resolution. 3rd Edition. London: Polity.
Reychler, L. & Paffenholz, T. 2001. Pacebuilding. A Field Guide.
Boulder: Lynne Rienner Publications.
Rotberg, R.I. (ed.) 2006.
Israeli and Palestinian Narratives
of Conlict. History’s Double Helix. Bloomington: Indiana
University Press.
Salem, W. & Kaufman, E. 2009. “From diagnosis to treatment:
towards new shared principles for Israeli/Palestinian
peacebuilding”, in D.J.D. Sandole, S. Byrne, I. SandolkeStaroste & J. Senehi (eds.) Handbook of Conlict Analysis and
Resolution. London: Routledge.
Salem, W. 2014. “Civil society in transition: The case of Palestina”,
in G. Golan & W. Salem (eds.) Non-State Actors in the Middle
East. Factors for Peace and Democracy. London: Routledge.
Pp. 13 – 27.
Scham, P., Salem, W. & Pogrund, B. (eds) 2005. Shared Histories:
A Palestine-Israeli Dialogue. Walnut Creek: Left Coast Press.
Wallesteen, P. 2007. Understanding Conlict Resolution. 2nd Edition.
London:Sage.
50 - FORUM - Archaeology as a tool for peacemaking
Whitelam, K.W. 1996. The Invention of Ancient Israel. The Silencing
of Palestinian History. London, Routledge.
BLOG REVIEWS UNTIL VOL 4
Almansa-Sánchez, J. Audiences… A review of the CASPAR session at
TAG-on-Sea 2013 (Bournemouth University) - 11 February
Papagiannopoulou, E. Multivocality and Technology: Review of
a lecture at the Irish Institute of Hellenic Studies at Athens
(IIHSA) - 14 February
Touloupa, S. A 30-year retrospect of the Greek Ministry of Culture
educational programmes: an insider’s insight - 25 April
Touloupa, S. When Public Archaeology is conlated with Cultural
Tourism - 7 July
Ion, A. Some thoughts on the 20th European Association of
Archaeologists Conference in Istanbul - 26 September
You can read them at:
http://arqueologiapublica.blogspot.com/ - Reviews
HOW TO CONTRIBUTE
AP: Online Journal in Public Archaeology welcomes original
contributions that match the aims of the journal and have not been
previously published anywhere else, or are not on the way to be
published elsewhere. Being online and free can be understood as a
sign of quality degradation, but this is not a barrier. It is just a way to
adapt from the very irst moment to the new panorama in research,
where the Internet is the main vehicle for transmission, and more
speciically in our ield, where the prices of journals are unaffordable
for any researcher that is not linked to a research institution. We try to
give the widest publicity to the journal, to make it Public.
Having made this clear, the papers can be sent in different ways:
-Mail:
AP: Online Journal in Public Archaeology
JAS Arqueología S.L.
Plaza de Mondariz, 6
28029 – Madrid
(Spain)
-Email:
jasarqueologia@gmail.com
-Filemail.com:
Filemail.com (www.ilemail.com) is a free tool to send large iles that
exceed the upload limit of a normal email account (Gmail, for example,
permits up to 25 Mb). It is a useful way of sending, for example, large
images. In this case, please contact us via email irst in case we are
not able to get them immediately (the link expires in three days).
Of course, any other similar application can be also accepted, like
Wetransfer or Dropbox.
STYLE
Length:
Full articles - We will only accept papers of less than 10.000 words
(including notes and references) with a maximum of 10 igures
(tables are counted as text).
Work reports – We will only accept papers of less than 5.000 words
(including notes and references) with a maximum of 5 igures
(tables are counted as text).
Reviews – We will only accept papers of less than 2.000 words (including
notes and references) with 1 igure, that in case of book reviews
will be the cover. In other events (conferences, ilm festivals…),
the igure must clearly relect the event.
Presentation:
To follow the indications of Public Archaeology (www.maney.
co.uk/journals/pua), and aiming to standardize the procedures from
our side, all material should follow the MHRA Style Guide, which can
be freely downloaded from:
http://www.mhra.org.uk/Publications/Books/StyleGuide/index.html
Figures:
The quality of igures should be good enough to be clear in a
PDF ile. There will not be any weird rule for the submission of the
iles. Just submit the igures in any readable format (able to be edited
in Adobe Photoshop ®). Every camera, software of scanner can make
good quality images, so just submit originals. If any igure is subject
to copyright it will be essential to attach a written permission from
the holder of the rights. To avoid any inconvenience, we encourage
the publication of self-owned images. In any case, the author will be
responsible for any violation of copyright issues.
Notes and references:
It is preferable to avoid footnotes in the text, just quote or explain
in brackets.
For references use Harvard style (Author 2010: 322) followed by
a inal bibliography. For example: ‘according to Author (2010: 123)
Public Archaeology can be...’ or ‘it has been pointed out (Author 2010:
13) that...’ etc.
Multiple citations should be in alphabetical order and separated by
a semi-colon, (Author et al., 1990; Creator and Author 2003; Producer
1982).
Where an author has several publications from the same year,
distinguish them with ‘lower-case’ letters (Author 2010a, 2010b). Do
not use ibid.
In the inal bibliography follow the system below:
Thesis
Castillo Mena, A. 2003. La Gestión del Patrimonio Arqueológico en
la Comunidad de Madrid. Unpublished PhD thesis, Universidad
Complutense de Madrid.
Journal article
Matsuda, A. 2004. The concept of “the Public” and the aims of Public
Archaeology. Papers from the Institute of Archaeology 15, 66-76.
Book
Demoule, J. P. 2007. L’archéologie préventive dans le monde. Apports
de l’archéologie preventive a la connaisance du passé. Paris, La
Décuverte.
Edited book
Durbin, G. (ed.) 1996. Developing Museum Exhibitions for Livelong
Learning. London, GEM.
Section in book
McEwan, C., Silva, M. I. and Hudson, Ch. 2006. Using the past to
forge the future: the genesis of the community site museum at
Aguablanca, Ecuador. In H. Silverman (ed.), Archaeological site
museums in Latin America. Gainesville, University of Florida Press,
187-216.
Internet reference
United Nations 1992, Agenda 21. Retrieved on 29 January 2010 from
WWW [http://www.un.org/esa/dsd/agenda21/res_agenda21_00.
shtml]
(As it is an online publication, all the quotes referring to an Internet
address should be active links).
In the case of any other kind of reference not mentioned here, please
contact the editor.
Once the article has been received:
The process for the acceptance of papers will be easy and fast.
Once the article has reached the editor, the decision will be taken in less
than 48 hours. Papers rejected from the editor will not be considered
again unless they undertake major changes. Correspondence will not
be continued for those papers. If the paper is pre-accepted by the
editor, it will be peer-reviewed by two different experts in the common
blind process. After that, the author will be given feedback and advice
in order to go over the article, which will be corrected again to check
if it meets the requirements of the reviewers. Once this process has
inished, the article will be edited as it will appear on the journal and
returned to the author for a inal check (only spelling mistakes or other
details, not changes on the text). The commitment of the journal is to
be able to complete the whole process in less than two months.
Work reports and reviews will not need to pass the peer-review
process, but will be commented by the editor.
We will be publishing one volume per year (irst trimester) and
although we are willing to receive papers the whole year, full articles for
next-year’s volume should be sent before October in order to complete
the process with time.
If you have any queries, please do not hesitate to contact the
editor at: jasarqueologia@gmail.com
LIST OF DONORS
We want to thank all the people that is helping to maintain this journal.
Especially those that chose to use one of the procedures in the donations
page. Every little help is welcome to continue with this project, and we
expect to increase this list year by year with your help.
Thank you very much:
Vicky Papagiannopoulou
Giannis Papagiannopoulos
Alipio Sánchez
Mª Ángeles Sánchez
José Mª Almansa
Mayca Rojo
Gaëlle Cerruti
Carlos Tejerizo
Jacob Hilton
Patrice L. Jeppson
Gemma Cardona
AP: Online Journal in Public Archaeology
Editors:
Jaime Almansa Sánchez & Elena Papagiannopoulou
Email: almansasanchez@gmail.com
Assistant editors:
Dominic Walker
Amanda Erickson Harvey
Kaitlyn T. Goss
Reviews editor:
Alexandra Ion
Assistant production editor:
Alejandra Galmés Alba
Edited by:
JAS Arqueología S.L.U.
Website: www.jasarqueologia.es
Email: jasarqueologia@gmail.com
Address: Plaza de Mondariz, 6, 28029 - Madrid (Spain)
-Cover Image: What are you looking at? (CAC)
Copyright © 2014 JAS Arqueología S.L.U. (edition) & Authors (content)
ISSN: 2171-6315
AP Journal is a peer-reviewed journal devoted exclusively to Public
Archaeology. It is freely distributed online on the Website:
www.arqueologiapublica.es
You can also follow us on:
Blogger:
http://arqueologiapublica.blogspot.com/
Twitter:
http://twitter.com/APjournal
Facebook:
http://www.facebook.com/APJournal