Archaeology and the Public in the 21st Century: The View from Israel_by Ann E. Killebrew_2004

·'·NTERPRETIN·GTHE·PAST····· Presenting Archaeological Sites to the Public Flemish Heritage Institute Provincial Archaeological Museum Ename Francqui Foundation Province of East-Flanders Ename Center for Public Archaeology and Heritage Presentation 2004 Brussels, Belgium KILLEBREW, THE VIEW FROM ISRAEL 43 ARCHAEOLOGY AND THE PUBLIC IN THE 21ST CENTURY: THE VIEW FROM ISRAEL Ann E. Killebrew Pennsylvania State University, USA Ename Center for Public Archaeology and Heritage Presentation, Belgium A s professional archaeological research enters its second century, new questions and issues have arisen regarding the role of archaeology and its relevancy to contemporary society, Following decades ofextensive archaeological excavation and investigation in Israel during the 1970s through 1990s, it is especially timely to examine the possible future directions of archaeology, Because of the sheer volume of archaeological activity conducted there, its high international profile, and its value as an example of both positive and negative trends, Israel is an ideal case study. This recent 'golden age' of archaeological investigation in Israel can be analyzed through four different, and sometimes overlapping, categories of archaeological activity: salvage or rescue excavations; research-based excavations; economically-driven excavations, that attempted to alleviate social problems or encourage economic and touristic development; and archaeological excavations with a political or nationalistic agenda. However, an additional type of archaeological work should also be added to this list. As we enter the more economically unstable and politically turbulent 21 st century, the archaeologist's responsibilities can no longer be solely limited to the traditional role of competent excavator and recorder of evidence. Far too often in the past the original purpose for excavating a site has been of dubious academic, political, economic, or social value. To the four basic types of archaeology that have characterized archaeological work in Israel for the past 30 years, I would like to propose an additional type of archaeology that I will term 'public archaeology'. This fifth category of 'public archaeology' addresses new issues arising during the last decade of the 20th century. I define it as the interface between archaeology and the public resulting in archaeology's integration into the public sphere on all levels: protection, conservation, development, interpretation, presentation, and education. It includes individual, community, national, and global dimensions. Gone are the days when the archaeologist existed blissfully in 44 INTERPRETING THE PAST his or her excavation or research 'ivory tower', oblivious to the public dimensions and impact of their work at ancient sites and the local communities. Although this may seem to be an obvious statement, it is still far more common today that the archaeologist is not involved, either through ignorance, choice, or exclusion, in the fate of the site once the excavations have ended. I The archaeologist of the 21st century will be held accountable not only for the proper excavation of a site and its scientific publication, but also for its post-excavation fate. This will entail the excavator's active involvement and engagement in a site's subsequent protection (reburial, consolidation, or conservation) and/or its interpretation and presentation to the public, and, when possible or relevant, for encouraging community and public involvement in the protection and/or interpretation of the revealed remains. Awareness and the realization that the archaeologist must take an increasingly proactive and responsible role for these issues should be an integral part of the archaeologist's duties and all formal education and training programs. Rather than provide a general overview of the recent treatment of archaeological sites and their interpretation,2 I raise issues concerning the archaeologists' need for an awareness of public responsibility that will be part of archaeological research of the 21st century. In my discussion, I bring several examples, mainly from Israel where I have worked as an archaeologist for more than twenty years, to illustrate these points. Protection and Conservation of the Archaeological Site Conservation of archaeological sites has been a main focus of concern III academic and international circles for several decades. Countless conferences and international courses, numerous monographs, and entire journals are now devoted to this crucial aspect of archaeological investigation. Although much work still needs to be done to train qualified specialists and encourage archaeologists to place conservation and protection as a higher priority, the situation has improved over the past decade. In Israel, all archaeological sites fall under the jurisdiction of the Israel Antiquities Authority (IAA). 3 Any activity at an ancient site, whether it is survey, excavation, conservation, protection, or development, must receive I 2 For a recent overview of the state of public archaeology, see Jameson 1997. See Killebrew 1999; Sivan 1997. See Rabinovich 1994; http://www.israntique.org.il KILLEBREW, THE VIEW FROM ISRAEL 45 the licensing or approval of the lAA. Although all surveys, excavations, and development activities at archaeological sites are closely regulated by the IAA, general protection and conservation are often difficult to enforce and, as a result, these post-excavation obligations of the excavation sponsor are often neglected. Unfortunately the worst offenders are usually the excavators themselves. This is especially prevalent at research excavations, where dig directors seldom devote more than token funding to the conservation and protection of the antiquities that they have excavated. Even less time and effort is invested in developing community awareness or interest in the site. This neglect can be clearly seen at nearly every site in Israel, particularly those that are not part of the national parks system or sites designated for public presentation. In recent years, several excavation areas at sites that were not designated for public presentation have been voluntarily back-filled, such as at Tel Miqne-Ekron, a Bronze and Iron Age site located in the southern coastal plain, and Tel Akko, another third to first mi11ennium Be city situated north of Haifa. The IAA has been taking an increasingly proactive stand on this issue, and has begun to implement, particularly at national parks, backfilling of excavation areas at their own expense. In my opinion, archaeologists themselves must assume a more active financial and moral responsibility for conserving the excavated remains, either through back-filling, basic consolidation and conservation of exposed archaeological remains, or construction of shelters over especially significant structures. More stringent regulations regarding allocation of excavation budget funds for conservation, preferably as part of the enforced requirements for an excavation license, would also significantly improve implementation of conservation programs. General site protection is a more difficult issue. Vandalism is widespread at many archaeological sites, especially at those sites that have not been developed for public presentation. Part of the problem is public education, which should be considered the role not only of public institutions such as the lAA, but also the responsibility of all practicing archaeologists. The unfortunate damage and destruction of archaeological sites, particularly unprotected sites in the politically volatile West Bank and Gaza Strip, are unfortunately being encouraged by the legality of selling antiquities in Israel, albeit under restricted conditions. Although most archaeologists agree that the ideal situation would be to ban antiquities sales, as is the case in most of the countries in the region, this is unlikely to occur in the near future due to the popularity of antiquities collecting both inside Israel and among tourists. In the past, archaeologists have even served as advisors to antiquities collectors, perpetuating the antiquities trade and bestowing legitimacy 46 INTERPRETING THE PAST on unprovenanced artifacts. Part of the solution would be to strongly discourage and professionally condemn any cooperation between antiquities dealers or collectors and professional archaeologists. A second solution is the more active involvement of all archaeologists in public education programs, both in the schools and in public forums, designed to convey and inform students and the general population regarding the effects and implications of vandalism, illicit excavation activity, and the purchase of antiquities. Lastly it is also important for governmental bodies - on a local, regional, or national level- to recognize that heritage sites will never be totally self sustaining. Government funding on various levels will always be required to properly protect and administer heritage, if it is to survive. This is best illustrated in Israel by the recent and ongoing financial crisis in the Israel Nature Reserve and National Parks Protection Authority. Ninety percent of funding for this authority comes from ticket sales. As a result ofthe political turmoil that began in September 2000, tourism has dropped sharply, seriously affecting the income and operating budget of this authority. The situation had become so critical that in June 2002 the Israel Nature Reserve and National Parks Protection Authority could not pay their staff and threatened to close all parks and nature reserves. 4 A temporary solution to this problem was found when the Israeli government approved short-term funding to enable payment of salaries. Protection and preservation ofheritage will always be dependent on public and governmental subsidies for its long-term survival. Presentation and Interpretation of Archaeological Sites This aspect of the discipline of archaeology is just beginning to receive significant international attention and should be considered an essential element of an archaeologist's training. Even in the United States and England, where site interpretation has traditionally played a major part at many national monuments and sites, there has been a tendency to separate the more academic aspects of archaeological work from the more 'popular' expressions at public archaeological sites. The Ename Center for Public Archaeology and Heritage Presentation, one of the organizers of this conference, is the first international non-profit research organization devoted entirely to this topic. Increasingly, presentation and interpretation of archaeological sites have become integral parts of archaeological conferences and symposiums. The most noteworthy examples include the World 4 Rinat 2002. KILLEBREW, THE VIEW FROM ISRAEL 47 Archaeological Congress (WAC), the European Association of Archaeologists (EAA), and the Society for American Archaeology (SAA). In Israel, as in most nations in the world, archaeological and historical sites are major tourist attractions and economic resources due to their religious, nationalistic, or political significance. During times of political stability, site visitation at national park sites such as Masada, Caesarea, and Megiddo draw hundreds of thousands of foreign visitors annually. Other sites, such as Qasrin, Sepphoris, and Gamla attract significant internal tourism. Although comprising one of the major attractions and components of tourist income for the State of Israel, the presentation and interpretation of these sites are largely ad hoc, with only varying degrees of cooperation between the site archaeologists, architects, national park personnel, and tourism officials. No doubt part of the difficulty lies with the political nature of public funding allocation to archaeological site development, the lack of professional training for many of the site managers and employees, the narrowly focused archaeological curricula at most of the country's universities and, perhaps most importantly, the lack of a sense of accountability to the larger public on the part of archaeologists themselves. For the vast majority of archaeologists working in the field today in Israel, their responsibility to the site ends with the conclusion of excavations and the publication of a site report. Archaeology of the 21st century will entail through necessity fewer, smaller, and less costly and destructive field excavations. It will employ greater numbers ofarchaeologists who will deal not only with the scientific techniques and methods of the excavation and site publication, but will increasingly be actively involved with the translation of the scientific results and their significance to a larger public. This has already begun at the Israel Nature Reserve and National Parks Protection Authority where a new position, referred to as 'site curator' , has been developed and instituted at a number of the more frequently visited sites such as Sepphoris. The site curator is responsible for the development of on-site interpretive and educational programs at select national parks. Recent approaches to site presentation have included total reconstruction (i.e. a domestic house at Qasrin (Ill. 1)), removal, relocation, and reconstruction of archaeologically significant structures (i.e. the four-room house and pillared store room at Hazor (Ill. 2)), and anastylosis, accompanied by intrusive partial reconstruction (e.g. at the classical and biblical Beth Shean (Ill. 3)).5 However, during the past few years, less-intrusive multi-media interpretative programs 5 Killebrew 1999. 48 INTERPRETING THE PAST Illustration 1: Qasrin: Restored village house dating to the Byzantine period. Photographed by Z. Radovan. Illustration 2: Tel Hazor: Relocated Iron Age pillared storeroom. Photographed by A. E. Killebrew. have been implemented at sites such as Beth Alpha and Sepphoris. Hopefully site presentation of the 21 st century will include the increased use of on-site lessintrusive high-tech virtual reality and multi-vocal interpretations. This approach has been successfully pioneered at the medieval site of Ename in East Flanders, Belgium (see article by Callebaut and Van der Donckt in this volume). KILLEBREW, THE VIEW FROM ISRAEL 49 Illustration 3: Beth Shean: View of re-erected columns of colonnaded road and theater dating to the Byzantine period. Photographed by V. Raz-Romeo. Community Outreach and Public Involvement Attempts to integrate and involve local communities in archaeology are probably the most difficult and neglected aspect in the discipline. In Israel, the inclusion of volunteers in the excavation process, often from the local community, has been a common feature of many archaeological excavations for the past 30 years. However, community outreach and public involvement in the interpretation and development of an archaeological site are generally not part of the archaeological process. An exception to this exists at several archaeological projects that are implemented and funded due to political or nationalistic considerations. Here ideologically motivated local communities often influence the archaeological interpretation, message, and site development such as at the City of David in Jerusalem, the biblical site of Shiloh in the West Bank, and the Byzantine period Jewish synagogue site of Qasrin in the Golan Heights. 6 Killebrew 1999 and see references there regarding the political uses of archaeology, especially Silberman 1997. 6 50 INTERPRETING THE PAST At a number of archaeological sites that are today in an urban setting, community outreach can be especially effective and have an impact on its long-tenn protection and interpretation. Most conservation, presentation, and touristic development programs of archaeological are doomed to failure without the support of the local residents. Thus archaeologists should become actively involved in communitybased outreach and education programs. In communities such as Akko, where residents of the Old City live in and on top of historic and archaeological remains, archaeology is often experienced as an impediment to basic living conditions and ultimate ownership of the property. This perception negativel y impacts on basic attitudes and long-tenn protection of historic buildings and archaeological sites located within the city. A new program exploring the shared heritage of Israelis and Palestinians (funded by the U.S. State Department Wye River People-toPeople program under the auspices of the University of Haifa and the Palestinian Association for Cultural Exchange) is now attempting to engage and include the local communities of Akko, Bethel (Beitin), and Gibeon (AI Jib), the latter two located in the West Bank, in archaeological endeavors and presentation programs through outreach and education programs (Ills. 4-6).1 Illustration 4: Gibeon (AI Jib, West Bank): Local villagers from AI Jib cleaning and restoring archaeological remains at Tel Gibeon . Photographed by A. Yahya . 7 Balter 2002; Scham 2002. KILLEBREW, THE VIEW FROM ISRAEL 51 Illustration 5: Gibeon (AI Jib, West Bank): View of Tel Gibeon Iron Age water system after community restoration project. Photographed by A. Yahya. Illustration 6 : Akko (Acre): Archaeologists from the 1M and University of Haifa discussing restoration and development plans for the Ottoman period "Saraya" with an American delegation . Photographed by V. Raz-Romeo. 52 INTERPRETING THE PAST Education The role of archaeology in education is as multi-dimensional as the discipline of archaeology itself. It is a key element in all three spheres of archaeological responsibility discussed above. By education, I include all levels of education: primary and secondary education of children and youth, archaeology at the college or university level , and the less fonnal frameworks of archaeology educational programs for the public (including public lectures, infonnal adult education courses, and transmission of archaeological results and discoveries via the media) . A number of archaeological societies and organizations, especially in the United States (e.g. Society for American Archaeology, Society for Historical Archaeology, Archaeological Institute of America, the American Schools of Oriental Research, and the National Parks Service), and England (e.g. English Heritage) have been at the forefront in this field, mainly on the primary through secondary school and public outreach levels. Many locally developed innovative archaeological programs have been implemented at a number of communities in the US, Europe, and elsewhere. The integration of archaeology in the school system and curricula can be accomplished either via the teaching of archaeology as a subject or through the integration of archaeologically based skills or concepts into other disciplines, such as math, art, history, or multi-cultural studies, just to mention a few possibilities. In Israel , the Israel Antiquities Authority, to its credit, has been actively involved in the development of education programs, especially on the primary and secondary school levels . Numerous programs have also been introduced into local schools, due largely to the initiative and interest of individual teachers. However until now, professional archaeologists have seldom taken an active role in primary or high school educational programs or in curriculum building. The need to provide training and education so that archaeologists can properly deal with the expanded needs of public archaeology is crucial. A number of universities have begun to introduce public archaeology studies into their curriculum including the heritage courses offered through the MA program in the Department of Archaeology at the University of Haifa in Israel (Ill. 7), the Center for Heritage Resources at the University of Maryland (affiliated with the Depaltment of Anthropology), and heritage degree programs at the University of Newcastle and University College London. In order to significantly change the attitudes of archaeologists, it is essential to introduce courses and programs in public archaeology into university curricula. KILLEBREW, THE VIEW FROM ISRAEL 53 Illustration 7: Timna: Presentation by site archaeologist (U . Avner) and conservator (R . Linn) on the interpretation and conservation of Timna to students enrolled in the University of Haifa Heritage Program . Photographed by V. Raz-Romeo . Conclusions Archaeology is beginning to undergo a significant transfonnation in many different parts of the world. The case of Israel is but one example of the need and desirability of including an ever-increasing public in the archaeological process. It is a positive development that will ultimately improve the relevancy and health of our discipline. Involvement oflocal communities in their past could ultimately lead to stronger local community ties and pride of stewardship of local archaeological or heritage sites. Public archaeology impacts not only the local level, but also a much broader global level (see D. Lowenthal's aliicle in this volume) . It is part of a much larger trend towards a concept of a shared stewardship of the past that is essential for its future protection. This is a challenge that we cannot ignore . As professionals we should welcome wider public participation in the interpretation, involvement and ownership of our past. 54 INTERPRETING THE PAST References cited BALTER M. 19 July 2002: Archaeologists Keep Joint Project Rolling, Science 297, 315316. JAMESON 1. H. Jr. 1997: Introduction: What This Book Is About. In: JAMESON 1. H. Jr. (ed.), Presenting Archaeology to the Public Digging/or Truths, London, 11­20. KILLEBREW A. E. 1999: From Canaanites to Crusaders. The Presentation of Archaeological Sites in Israel, Conservation and Management 0/ Archaeological Sites 3, 17­32. RABINOVICH A. 1994: Inside the Israel Antiquities Authority, Biblical Archaeology Review 20(2), 40­45. RINAT Z. 2002: National Parks and Nature Reserves to be Closed this Week, Ha 'aretz Newspaper, June 23. SCHAM S. 2002: Hope Amid the Carnage, Archaeology July/August, 18­19. SILBERMAN N. A. 1997: Structuring the Past: Israelis, Palestinians and the Symbolic Authority of Archaeological Monuments. In: SILBERMAN N. A. & SMALL D. (eds.), Archaeology 0/ Israel: Constructing the Past, Interpreting the Present, Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series 237, Sheffield, 62­81. SIVAN R. 1997: The Presentation of Archaeological Sites. In: DE LA TORRE M. (ed.), The Conservation o/Archaeological Sites in the Mediterranean Region, Los Angeles, 5159.