Life can only be understood backwards; but must be lived forwards
Søren Kirkegaard, Danish philosopher, 1813–55.
Introduction
During our round table discussion in Helsinki one fundamental question arose and is neatly formulated by Audrey Horning (in this issue, p. 19). ‘Is there a line between being an archaeologist and being a citizen? Do we have a moral obligation as experts not to only share our knowledge, but to put that knowledge to work in the present?’ As I see it, the role of archaeologists in public life is a combination of understanding the past and present, and helping societies in manoeuvring into the future. Archaeologists can, and should, contribute to education and cultural awareness, and intervene in public debate. The question is whether to keep our involvement part of publicity or make it part of decision making. At the same time, we are not politicians; we are social scientists who deal with cultural heritage as a part of cultural inheritance. But we are also citizens of our respective societies and it is quite crucial, therefore, to contribute to making a difference in many aspects of human life: not only intellectual changes in the field of archaeology, but also social, cultural and political aspects.
In this paper I will shed light on my involvement in the Israeli–Palestinian Archaeology Working Group and I will focus on how a small group of archaeologists has contributed positively to one of the most complicated political conflicts in modern history. I will also present one example from Al-Jib (Gibeon) to show how archaeology has been used to encourage and motivate cultural understanding between local societies (Palestinians), and a period of their past, which represents another ethnic group (the Israelites).
Archaeology as political power
According to Singleton and Orser (2003, 143), ‘descendant communities are generally present-day groups of people whose heritage is under investigation at an archaeological site, or who have some other historical, cultural or symbolic link to the site’. However, the greatest challenges of working with successor communities occurs when archaeologists’ interests and interpretations collide with those of the descendant communities (ibid., 149), as in the case of Palestine/Israel.
During the 1950s, archaeology in Israel was used as a national cult and popular movement, reflecting a fanatical quest to create a common history of a national state which had citizens from all over the world (Elon Reference Elon, Silberman and Small1997, 41–43). Links between the new settlers and the ancestral land were reaffirmed and sites became symbols of national pride and unity in political, religious and military strategies (Trigger Reference Trigger1984, 358–59; Reference Trigger1986, 6; Reference Trigger and Kohl1995, 271; Silberman Reference Silberman1989; Reference Silberman and Levy1998). The goals of Israeli archaeology have meant that very little state support is accorded to the study of other eras, such as the Christian and Muslim periods, since this would be counterproductive from a nationalistic point of view (Trigger Reference Trigger and Kohl1995, 271; see also Bar-Yosef and Mazar Reference Bar-Yosef and Mazar1982, 310, 322). This was affirmed by excavations of sites such as Masada, where finds were presented as the outcome of a heroic moment in Jewish history (Anderson Reference Anderson and Levy1998, 466–67). Masada was interpreted as a symbol of national freedom, based on a selective interpretation of the archaeological and historical material. Misinterpreting archaeological data for political purposes has led to ignorance of equally important aspects of the human history (Trigger Reference Trigger and Kohl1995, 272).
After the 1967 war and the occupation of the West Bank and Gaza Strip, the Israeli army created an archaeological office headed by army personnel to control all archaeological sites and activities in the occupied territories.Footnote 1 To date, there are approximately 6,000 known archaeological sites in the West Bank and East Jerusalem (Greenberg and Keinan Reference Greenberg and Keinan2009, 3–5). Numerous archaeological investigations have been conducted from 1967 until today, all in violation of the fourth Geneva Convention of 1949 and the Hague Convention of 1954 and under the pretext of salvage excavations (Sayej Reference Sayej2010, 61).
The vast majority of excavations conducted by the Staff Officer for Archaeology are either published in the form of preliminary reports, or not published at all. The Staff Officer for Archaeology is more or less the only authority to have full access to the recovered data, though under the Freedom of Information Act in Israel other researchers have the right to access these materials as well.
After the establishment of the Palestinian Authority in 1994, the Palestinian Department of Antiquities and Cultural Heritage was reborn. The latter has conducted several salvage and scientific excavations in both the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. Some publications are available and material can be accessed by researchers.
Archaeology and the Israeli–Palestinian conflict
The idea behind the peace process is to give Palestinians the right to self-determination and to establish their own state which will live side by side with Israel (Tveit Reference Tveit2005). A future state of Palestine will be located within the border of 1967 war – i.e. the Gaza Strip, the West Bank and East Jerusalem. The biblical boundaries of the ancient states of Israel and Judea are mainly within what is today known as the West Bank. Archaeological materials recovered there by Israelis since 1967 were justified as the fruits of salvage excavations, even though many of these ‘salvage excavations’ were conducted as a result of building Israeli settlements which are, according to international law, illegal. It is thus natural that such material recovered will be claimed by Palestinians through sovereignty. However, the Israelis will also claim these materials as part of their national heritage. For both sides archaeology is a sensitive issue and reflects national identity, and, as Silberman (Reference Silberman and Kohl1995, 257) puts it, ‘The emotional power of archaeology in Israel is quite intense particularly when archaeologists link the present to a particular golden age’. It is quite vital to highlight that archaeology may jeopardize any future peace agreements if not dealt with systematically and thoroughly, not only among Palestinian and Israeli archaeologists, but also among other archaeologists who work in the region (see http://crcc.usc.edu/initiatives/shi/ipawg.html).
Since the Oslo accord was signed on 12 September 1993 (see Tveit Reference Tveit2005, 468–85; also www.unhcr.org/refworld/publisher,ARAB,,,3de5e96e4,0.html), Israelis and Palestinians have participated in immense meetings. Major issues such as security, borders, land swaps and water rights have been discussed, whereas other issues, such as cultural heritage, archaeology and the cultural status of Jerusalem, have been neglected.
Until 2005, no formal preparations were made by either side to deal with these issues. It was vital, therefore, to prepare a common understanding for heritage division by creating reliable data resources that will enable negotiations to take place. The Israeli–Palestinian Archaeology Working Group (IPAWG) has taken this responsibility and filled the void (see http://crcc.usc.edu/initiatives/shi/ipawg.html).
Who are IPAWG?
According to the late Edward Said (1999, 20), ‘There can be no possible reconciliation, no possible solution unless Palestinians and Israelis confront each's experience in the light of the other’. Dealing with the past is an essential issue for achieving peace in troubled regions such as Palestine/Israel. Having this in mind, the Israeli–Palestinian Archaeology Working Group was established.
The IPAWG is a small group of Israeli and Palestinian archaeologists who recognize that conflicts and tensions related to archaeological heritage pose a significant challenge to future peace negotiations. A group of three Israelis,Footnote 2 three Palestinians,Footnote 3 two co-organizers,Footnote 4 and two professional mediatorsFootnote 5 have taken the responsibility to solve this issue. The group was set up secretly in 2005 in Vienna and from then it worked systematically and intensively until a common document was published in 2008.
The goal of IPAWG was to deal with issues of archaeology and cultural heritage management. We share common borders and a common history, but who owns what? We were also eager to produce updated archaeological data resources and to somehow help facilitate any future negotiations between the two nations. We were not involved in politics and we were not mandated by politicians to carry out this mission. The main objective of our group was to consider various aspects of the role of archaeology in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, including the public's perceptions of archaeology, the status of archaeological sites and finds in the event of the implementation of a two-state solution, and Jerusalem as a world heritage site.
The outcome of the group
Our goal was to pen a paper of common understanding of archaeology and cultural heritage in the Holy Land. This paper can be used as blueprint for those who want to negotiate the future of both nations. The outcome of this understanding was the following:
1 A joint document listing recommendations on the place of archaeological heritage in a final-status agreement.
2 The creation of the West Bank and East Jerusalem Archaeological Database. This database presents Israeli archaeological activities in the West Bank – including East Jerusalem – between 1967 and 2007.Footnote 6
Intervention and awareness
In 1997, I became a member of the Palestinian Association for Cultural Exchange (PACE), which is based in Ramallah. During my involvement in this organization, I witnessed the lack of cultural awareness among Palestinians, particularly when it comes to sensitive periods such as the Iron Age – where the biblical stories flourished. There are various reasons behind the lack of knowledge and I have discussed it elsewhere (see Sayej Reference Sayej2010).
One of the major goals of PACE is public awareness. Various campaigns, particularly in rural areas, have been conducted to encourage local communities to safeguard cultural heritage in their regions as a part of their own history. Such awareness campaigns have included diverse lectures, films, meetings and guided tours, as well as preservation and conservation (see Yahya Reference Yahya, Pollock and Bernbeck2005).
One of the most interesting examples is the Palestinian village of Al-Jib (biblical Gibeon). This village is located 10 kilometres north-west of Jerusalem and is the location of the archaeological site of Gibeon. This archaeological site is quite famous due to its water system (the cistern). The ancient water system is a 12th- to 11th-century BC spiral staircase of 79 steps cut into solid rock. During the siege of the city in ancient times, the inhabitants of Gibeon could go through the cistern to a long tunnel, and to a spring outside the walls of city. In this way, they could survive a siege no matter how harsh it might be (see Pritchard Reference Pritchard1962).
In modern times, the local Palestinian inhabitants of Al-Jib have ignored this site and used it to dispose of their waste. They did not understand the importance of this site and they viewed it as a justification of the current Israeli occupation. They thought that by doing so they would avoid having to accept the idea that this site might have been used by Jewish inhabitants somewhere around 3,000 years ago. When PACE started an awareness campaign among these inhabitants, as well as restoring the cistern, people became more aware of the cultural heritage of their village regardless of religious or national implications. The inhabitants of Al-Jib see these ruins nowadays as part of their history irrespective of which ethnic group or religion the remains represent. By doing so, PACE have achieved the goal of protecting the cultural heritage of the nation despite the current conflict between Palestinians and Israelis.
Concluding remarks
As we have seen, the role of archaeologists in public life is not limited to just understanding, reflecting and informing on the past. Our role is also to reveal who we are today and to try to help society move into the future. This kind of involvement is well described by the famous Danish philosopher who said, ‘Life can only be understood backwards; but must be lived forwards’ (Søren Kirkegaard 1813–55). We are a major part of the public intellectuals who should intervene in public debate not only in the media but also in decision making. We should separate our own view of nationalistic archaeology, and rather try to understand archaeology without responding emotionally (Trigger Reference Trigger and Kohl1995, 277–78). The case of Al-Jib is a good example in this regard. Palestinian archaeologists have intervened in public debate and have protected the cultural heritage of the nation, though part of this site refers to an ethnic group which is seen today as ‘the Enemy Nation’.
The Israeli–Palestinian Archaeology Working Group was created among regular academics who have absolutely no influence in politics. When our document became publicly known, first among our colleagues and then internationally, the vast majority of responses were positive towards the document. Sensitive issues like Jerusalem, the Dead Sea scrolls and the repatriation of movable objects were often seen as taboo in the past, but when we presented our document such issues became facts on the ground. We risked our jobs and even our lives to achieve this goal, and now it is the only reliable document available to future negotiations between the two nations. Archaeologists can and should make a difference in public debate. We are a small part of the larger society of humankind, but our contribution can make the world a better place to live.
Websites
For further information about IPAWG document, see http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/plan-brokered-by-ucla-usc-archaeologists-47749.aspx; http://crcc.usc.edu/initiatives/shi/ipawg.html. The document is available as a PDF, for those who wish to download a copy.
For further information about the archaeological database, see http://digitallibrary.usc.edu/wbarc.
Archaeologists’ agreement a stride toward Mideast peace (video) available at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wkRATNj8WDo.
Declaration of principles on interim self-government arrangements available at www.unhcr.org/refworld/publisher,ARAB,,,3de5e96e4,0.html.
Appendix The following document became publicly known to the Israeli and Palestinian governments on 21 November 2007, and thereafter became available online on the website of the University of Southern California (www.usc.edu/dept/LAS/arc/sh).
Israeli–Palestinian Archaeology Working Group Agreement
Preamble
This document is based on these assumptions:
1 Sovereign states interacting peacefully.
2 Two-state solution (Israel and Palestine).
3 Cultural heritage interests will be mutually respected.
GENERAL GUIDING PRINCIPLES
1 The national territories of Israel and Palestine constitute a unified archaeological landscape divided by political borders.
2 Archaeological resources are not renewable. Both states hold special responsibility to preserve local archaeological heritage as its significance extends far beyond national borders.
3 Each sovereign state defines its own concept of archaeological heritage.
Joint Recommendations
1 Both states should make the basic documentation of their archaeological activities and policies accessible to the public, including a national register of sites, monuments and artifacts.
2 All archaeological excavations and surveys should be licensed by the state.
3 States should require archaeologists to comply with professional best practices.
4 Both sides are strongly encouraged to form a bilateral, professional committee in order to consult on cultural heritage issues of joint interest.
5 Both sides are strongly encouraged to cooperate with each other and/or other parties to ensure the well-being of and access to archaeological heritage.
6 Both states are encouraged to adopt relevant international conventions, charters and protocols related to archaeological heritage.
IMMOBILE ARCHAEOLOGICAL HERITAGE
Immobile archaeological heritage includes sites, standing monuments and features that are or were by nature normally a fixed part of a site.
The definition of archaeological heritage is contingent upon its legal definition within each sovereign state.
SPECIFIC Guiding Principles
1 Archaeological sites should be treated equally regardless of their period of occupation or any religious, ethnic, national or cultural affiliation.
2 All archaeological sites are the responsibility solely of the sovereign state in which they reside.
3 The physical integrity of archaeological sites should be protected if the international border intersects them.
Joint Recommendations
1 Joint Israeli–Palestinian projects should be encouraged.
2 Both states will make their archaeological sites accessible to the public without discrimination.
3 Where possible, states are encouraged to use multilingual interpretative presentation and maps – particularly in Arabic, Hebrew and English.
MOBILE ARCHAEOLOGICAL HERITAGE
Mobile archaeological heritage includes artifacts and eco-facts from an archaeological context.
The definition of archaeological heritage is contingent upon its legal definition within each sovereign state.
SPECIFIC Guiding Principles
1 The artifacts excavated subsequent to June 4, 1967, should be returned to the state in which their original archaeological context is located, either Israel or Palestine, along with all documentation related to their excavation.
2 Artifacts residing in museum collections which were taken over subsequent to June 4, 1967, shall be repatriated.
3 The illegal and indiscriminate removal of archaeological artifacts from an archaeological site should be considered looting.
4 Artifacts which can be shown to have been looted subsequent to June 4, 1967 should be returned to the state in which their original archaeological context is located.
5 After resolution of any repatriation issues, all archaeological artifacts are the sole responsibility of the sovereign state in which they reside. Either state may loan, cede access and consider joint exhibition.
6 Archaeological artifacts should be treated equally regardless of their period or any religious, ethnic, national or cultural affiliation.
7 The above principles apply equally to sensitive archaeological material (see Appendix 1).
Joint Recommendations
1 In cases of archaeological heritage that require special facilities which do not exist in the present infrastructure of either state, two options are to be considered: (a) outside entities shall assist financially and professionally in the setup of the required facilities; or (b) such archaeological heritage may be loaned to a party capable of providing adequate care.
2 In light of the destruction of archaeological material by looting we recommend that legal and enforcement parity between the two states be established by legislation in both states that will either a) forbid commercial traffic in archaeological heritage or b) confine commercial traffic to government bodies.
JERUSALEM
Background: The Old City of Jerusalem and its walls have been designated by UNESCO as a World Heritage Site.
Guiding Principles
1 All guiding principles and recommendations laid out in the other sections (mobile, immobile sections) apply to Jerusalem following the resolution of territorial and sovereignty issues.
2 Regardless of international borders, Jerusalem's World Heritage Site status should be safeguarded.
3 Jerusalem's unique archaeological heritage is not renewable.
4 Both countries hold special responsibility to preserve the archaeological heritage of Jerusalem as its significance extends far beyond national borders.
5 The religious and political sensitivities of Jerusalem should be taken into account whenever archaeological work is undertaken.
Joint Recommendation
1 If Jerusalem, or a part of Jerusalem, is divided between Israel and Palestine, then the Guiding Principles noted above in this document shall apply.
2 If any portion of Jerusalem is subject to suspended sovereignty arrangements (a Special Regime), then an archaeological heritage department will be constituted subject to the Special Regime Authority. That archaeological heritage department will be empowered with the requisite authority and will be given the budgetary capacity to preserve and manage the archaeological heritage in accordance with best professional practices.
3 For Cultural Resource Management purposes, a Heritage Zone will be created that reflects the area of maximum concentration of significant archaeological sites in the contiguous urban fabric of ancient Jerusalem (see fig. 1).
a Regardless of the sovereignty arrangements in Jerusalem, the parties are encouraged to expand the borders of the World Heritage Site to include, at a minimum, the Heritage Zone (defined above).
b A UNESCO observer will be appointed by UNESCO. All sides will report any activities impacting cultural heritage within the Heritage Zone to this observer.
c Heritage management does not preclude development but requires mitigation, and protection of, cultural heritage resources.
Map of proposed heritage zone.
Publication of Archaeological Heritage
This section addresses the issue of publication rights for archaeological material that will be repatriated between Israel and Palestine.
1 The process of repatriation shall begin upon signing the Final Status Agreement.
2 For archeological excavations and associated excavated material, if the material has been published fully prior to repatriation, the material shall be returned immediately.
3 All archaeological material subject to repatriation will be repatriated within five (5) years from the date of signing the Final Status Agreement.
4 All publication rights for repatriated material will be terminated ten years after the date of signing of the Final Status Agreement.
Appendix 1 Sensitive Mobile Archaeological Heritage
The principles enumerated for mobile archaeological heritage shall apply and in addition, because both sides acknowledge that there are objects which have extraordinary importance to the other side, the following recommendation should be considered:
Keeping in mind the deep symbolic value of certain items of archaeological heritage on the one hand, and recognizing the principle of repatriation on the other hand, we recommend that both sides consider loan and exchange arrangements where sensitive archaeological material is involved.
