06 Scham 2003 Heritage & Reconciliation

399

Heritage and reconciliation

SANDRA ARNOLD SCHAM

American Schools of Oriental Research

ADEL YAHYA

Palestinian Association for Cultural Exchange

ABSTRACTApplied cross-cultural archaeology must be recognized as an essen-tial step in the development of a reflexive, multi-vocal interpretationof the past. Projects like Ian Hodders excavations at Catalhoyuk thatactually address these issues, however, are still considered highlyinnovative, which is a fair indication as to how common they are. Insti-tuting a dialogue about the past between archaeologists from twonations at war with each other would appear to be the ultimate experi-ment in multi-vocal archaeological practice. Reconciliation of ourpasts inevitably becomes a further objective, but this requires a leapof faith and imagination premised on some degree of belief in thepossible good faith of the other side a quality rarely felt in themiddle of a conflict. The common wisdom on how Israelis and Pales-tinians can deal with their intertwined and largely violent historiessuggests that only through adopting a common narrative can under-standing be achieved. The project that stimulated the followingarticle, however, is based upon a different premise that, to movetoward a reflexive reconciliation, it is necessary to acknowledge theimperfections of our own narratives without fully rejecting them.

Journal of Social Archaeology A R T I C L E

Copyright 2003 SAGE Publications (www.sagepublications.com)Vol 3(3): 399416 [1469-6053(200310)3:3;399416;038212]

06 Scham (to/d) 22/8/03 1:10 pm Page 399

400 Journal of Social Archaeology 3(3)

KEYWORDSdialogue historical reconciliation Israeli-Palestinian conflict reflexivity war zone archaeology

INTRODUCTION

Almost by definition, every conflict is based on the historical experience ofthe antagonists. Ancient claims that support exclusive rights to cultural, andother, property from time immemorial figure greatly in violent clashesaround the globe. The more ancient such claims are, the more likely theclaimants on both sides will be to maintain a belligerent ignorance of thenarrative of the other side. It is those struggles that contain a particularlypotent mix of historical/religious nodes of contention, however, that aremost likely to implicate archaeology. Widely recognized as furnishing thesymbolic framework for the construction of confrontational national iden-tities (Abu El-Haj, 1998, 2002) archaeology would appear to be a poorchoice of disciplines for an experiment in cultural reconciliation. Manyarchaeological practitioners, even while implicitly recognizing that much oftheir work has been used to create a past that supports a collective view ofhow we have come to be where we are (Trigger, 1984, 1995), nonethelessfeel a profound discomfort with the notion that they advance a view of thepast that might have the potential for taking us elsewhere.

We have made greater progress professionally in rectifying our contri-butions to the partisan rhetoric that has disenfranchised certain groupsfrom inclusion in our histories and archaeological texts (Franklin, 1997,1998; Gero, 1995; Leone, 1992; McDavid, 1997, 1999; Orser, 1992, 1998).The bone wars, the Native American Graves Protection and RepatriationAct (Vizenor, 1986), the scathing critiques of colonialist influence oninterpretations of the past in developing countries (Castaneda, 1996), theexposure of the unquestioning nationalist bias of much archaeologicalresearch (Arnold, 1990; Brown, 1994, 1998; Meskell, 1998; Scham, 1998)and the struggle of minorities to be included in conceptions of nationalhistory (Buck, 1994; Paynter and McGuire, 1991) are clear signs that a newapproach is developing to the interpretation and (re)presentation of thepast (Bond and Gilliam, 1994).

In spite of this progress, postmodern uncertainty coupled with a strongbelief in the imminence of cultural globalization generally will keep archae-ologists from the fray (Hamilakis, 1999). As scholars of the past, many ofus would be the first to acknowledge that we are not the most astute judgesof the present political scene (Scham, 1998), and the specters of Nazi andSoviet style archaeologies are enough to justify a seeming neutrality at

06 Scham (to/d) 22/8/03 1:10 pm Page 400

401Scham & Yahya Heritage and reconciliation

least in practice, if not in theory. Also, the process by which archaeologybecomes a tool in constructing contentious pasts involves so many factorsover which archaeologists have little or no control. The translation ofmaterial representations of the past into emblems or pretexts for warfarecan seem so organically part of a societys historical view of itself as toconfound our best efforts of interpretation. We cannot remove these causesof conflict or even explain them into benignity. Few who are caught up inbattles over the sites would care to hear about how we understand thearchaeology of Jerusalem or Ayodhya or any other violently disputedcultural property (Hammami and Tamari, 2001; Scham, 2001a). There aremeans by which we as archaeologists can facilitate mutual understandingof the past consonant with our professional responsibilities, as we see them,as long as we recognize that bringing together sometimes oppositional pastswill not inevitably lead to a shared version. Even if such an achievementwere possible, it would hardly be desirable. It is the interaction of our differ-ences that gives vitality to our dialogue. This vitality may consistently hoveron the verge of confrontation, but it also presents the kind of challenge weseldom encounter in our work.

This article documents the beginnings of a dialogue that led to thedevelopment of a project to critically examine the common heritage ofIsraelis and Palestinians in Palestine, as presented in educational curriculaand public information. The project is sponsored by the US Department ofState with funds authorized under the Wye River Accords (another peacenegotiation milestone in the IsraeliPalestinian conflict that has disinte-grated) and involves Israelis from the University of Haifa and Palestiniansfrom the Palestinian Association for Cultural Exchange (PACE). Inexamining our respective histories as presented to the public and as theyare known more intimately from our own cultural perspectives. The projectis an experiment that is based upon a premise forcefully summed up byEdward Said: [T]here can be no possible reconciliation, no possiblesolution unless these two communities confront the experience of each inthe light of the other (Said, 1999: 3).

RECONCILING TO OUR OWN PASTS

Reflexivity, a fundamental concept of postmodern social science researchmethodology (Steier, 1991), has become such an integral part of theoreticalarchaeological interpretation (Hodder, 1992, 1998, 1999, 2000) as to almostconstitute an end in itself. Even if it were not standard practice, a certainamount of reflexivity would be essential to our project in order for us toeven conceive of it. As we progressed, we found that the incontrovertiblefact that the ensemble of relations (Gramsci, 1971: 352) between Israelis

06 Scham (to/d) 22/8/03 1:10 pm Page 401


and Palestinians had developed into an all-out war would impose a self-reflective stance even were we initially unreceptive to it. Nevertheless, assomewhat self-styled representatives of the Israeli and Palestinian communi-ties, we came together from many different professional backgrounds andfew of us were schooled enough in social science methodology to devise aplan to move beyond this rather basic level of reflexivity.

Eventually, in order to continue with the project under wartimeconditions, we came to implicitly accept the premise that in order tocommunicate our efforts to our respective communities we needed toachieve some degree of understanding of the other side without giving upour own history and sense of ourselves. This is clearly not the kind of reflex-ivity envisioned by critics of the hegemonic Western meta-narrative(Bhabha, 1990; Castaneda, 1996) which would suggest that the dominantside in this discourse (the Israeli) should willingly disengage from its recog-nized past. The implicit assumption upon which this project was built,however, is that it is necessary, appropriate and legitimate for both sides tonurture and maintain their own narratives. Israeli and Palestinian historyis so intertwined and so built upon certain perceptions of the other, that itis incumbent upon the two sides to make the effort to understand the narra-tive of the one in the context of the other.

While critically acknowledging the imperfections in each of ourpremises, we must also confront the fact that, by doing so we are assuminga role of marginal observers in our own communities. Perhaps it is thismarginality, or our personal relationship, that enabled us to engage in afairly consensual exploration of our different pasts. These discussions arenot entirely free of anguish, however harmonious our accord on certainissues, but we had fewer deep differences on this topic than might beexpected. The most difficult part of the process is the insecurity that isalways inherent in placing oneself in the position of understanding alterity(Giddens, 1991) especially in a wartime situation. While we may cravecertainty in our understanding we are, nonetheless, aware that we havepartially rejected the certainty of our distinct cultural institutions simply beworking together.

As joint authors to this article, the two of us had originally intended topresent our different views of the Israeli and Palestinian pasts. Not surpris-ingly, considering the philosophical orientation of individuals who wouldengage in this kind of dialogue in the first place, there are only a few pointsupon which we disagree. Our communities, however, are much moreheavily invested in the ultimate truth of their stories. As scholars we cannottruly represent the emotional involvement that people have with thesenarratives but we are familiar enough with them, through our educationand work in the region.

Those of us who are Israeli Jews, have been subjected to generations ofJewish diaspora tradition, which emphasizes that continuity of language

06 Scham (to/d) 22/8/03 1:10 pm Page 402


and the putative historical support of one of the best-known books in theworld have provided us with a long term chronicle of our relationship tothe land (Abu El-Haj, 2002; Benvenisti, 2000; Glock, 1990; Shapira, 1996).Those of us who are Palestinians intuitively know that our views of the pastare a form of resistance to this Israeli narrative, by means of formulating anational Palestinian narrative in the same image (Yahya, 1998).

Most Palestinian scholars of the past write for the Palestinians and thatis why many of their books may seem more like propaganda than straight-forward narratives, based on evidence and the citation of various academicsources (Yahya, 1998). Israeli historians have a great advantage over Pales-tinian historians because they have their own archives. Nevertheless, ifrecorded history is, as has often been said, the property of the conquerors,oral history often becomes the competing tactic of the conquered. ForPalestinians, oral history has become instrumental in formulating the Pales-tinian narrative even of the very distant past (Nashef, 2000; Nur El-Din,2000; Ziadeh, 1995; Ziadeh-Seely, 1999). The rationale for using oral dataas historical evidence is the fact that Palestinians have not been able to dootherwise. Also, in terms of both language and position, Palestinians arefar better placed than Israelis to record the observations of other Pales-tinians which, as a few Israeli scholars (Pappe, 1994; Rogan and Shlaim,2001) have also noted, are the vital elements lacking in the nations chron-icles. In addition, there is now a new class of Palestinian academics whograduated from western academic institutions (mostly American, but alsoGerman and even Israeli), who are working in Israel or in the Palestinianterritories (Scham, 2001b; Yahya, 1998, 1999a). These are the people whohave initiated the process of countering the Israeli written narrative byformulating the new Palestinian narrative (Hassasian, 2001; Khalidi, 1997).

The official versions of Israeli and Palestinian histories, that we havebeen subjected to, differ as to how the stories should be told in rather unex-pected ways. While few texts for schools and universities in Israel referencethe Palestinian past, it is difficult to find one Palestinian history book thatfails to reference the Israeli past, usually characterizing it as an insidiousZionist myth (Khalidi, 1997; Rogan and Shlaim, 2001; Segev, 1999; Stern-hell, 1999; Wasserstein, 2001). In each case, the texts reflect the past eachside ultimately desires on the one hand, a past without Palestinians (likethe land without a people) and on the other hand, a past that demon-strates, once and for all, the falsehood of the premise upon which the IsraeliState was established.

The archaeological sites in the region have become the field on whichthese desired pasts battle for hegemony. Most archaeologists in the regionsee themselves as confronting a much more complicated situation of manycontending and perhaps equally valid, stories of the past (Finkelstein andSilberman, 2001). As a discipline that bridges the sciences and the human-ities (Hodder, 1999), archaeology must also provide a bridge between theabstract (interpretation) and the concrete (material culture). Historians

06 Scham (to/d) 22/8/03 1:10 pm Page 403


have not been forced to reckon with the tangible evidence of their viewsbeyond the biased archives upon which they base their findings. Archaeol-ogists, on the other hand, have learned to adjust to the idea that, for mostpeople, the past is a theme park and they want the themes to be familiarones (Scham, 2002). The pressure to deliver an archaeologically demon-strable Israeli or Palestinian past is, in both cases, considerable.

For the average Israeli seeking evidence of the Jewish distant past inJerusalem is, for example, a frustrating process. Virtually ninety percent ofthe old buildings in the city are Arab built and its chief tourist attractionsare the Church of the Holy Sepulcher and the Via Dolorosa. Israels panaceafor this is the ubiquitous ancient diorama, where models and simulations ofAncient Israelite buildings appear in the most unlikely places. A new Israelimuseum, opened during the current Intifada, shows a virtual Jewish Templerising above the actual ruins of an Islamic palace (Scham, 2001: 32). TheJerusalem Time Elevator, an exhibit in the citys international pressbuilding, seems purposefully designed to frighten small children into anappreciation of their heritage by showing, in three dimensional living color,every battle that has ever taken place in or near Jerusalem.

Israelis once believed that the stakes in these historical and archaeo-logical shell games were the dangers of conjuring those raw emotions wehave lately seen played out on television screens and in newspapers. Nowthey are bewildered that the agreement they thought had been reached withPalestinian politicians the agreement that, in the words of one Palestin-ian commentator, made it . . . acceptable to settle someone elses country,expel its inhabitants and ensure by all means that they never return . . . but. . . unacceptable in bad taste even to mention that these things hadactually happened, (as quoted in Benvenisti, 2000: 46) did not firmlyplace the region on the road to a permanent resolution of its differences.

The shifting relationship between the politics of remembering and thepolitics of forgetting as Appadurai (2001: 37) has characterized it is at workhere, and all of these ploys used by Israelis and Palestinians to present thepast have been highly successful among their target audiences. Jews visitingthe land of Israel may skip the Dome of the Rock or the Christian sites butit is highly unlikely that they would fail to visit the model of Herods Templeon the grounds of the Holyland Hotel. Palestinians visiting Israel, inaddition to pay homage to the holy sites, intentionally confront themselvesat every turn with the reoccupation, and sometimes destruction, of theirhistorical places.

PROLOGUE

If reflexivity leaves us, as Pollner (1991) envisions, unsettled and appre-hensive, it seems reasonable to assume that any reconciliation attendant to

06 Scham (to/d) 22/8/03 1:10 pm Page 404


such reflexivity will be a painful process indeed. Questioning our assump-tions, core beliefs and absorbed truths is one thing. Excavating the foun-dations of our identities and the premises for which our friends andrelatives are daily risking their lives is quite another. So much so that onewonders whether the early theorists of the reflexive method (Bourdieu,1990; Gouldner, 1970; Habermas, 1981) could have fully anticipated thisuse of the concept. The ever-present labels of traitor or collaborator inMiddle East politics are far more threatening than the mere scholarly disap-probation to which Western radical theorists may be exposed. Israeliarchaeologists and historians who question or reject the paradigms of thepast are vulnerable to accusations of providing aid and comfort to theenemy. Palestinians who do not fully reject the Israeli narrative are admon-ished that they may be contributing to facts on the ground, supporting theIsraeli appropriation of land (Scham, in press), or they are accused ofcultural normalization or tatbiyah which, in Palestinian parlance, has ahighly pejorative connotation (Yahya, 1999b).

At a time when ideology has become more important than scholarship,and protecting sites from tourism and over-development has given way toprotecting them from tanks and missiles, we have found many frustrationsin implementing a project like ours. Dialogue is the all-important next stepbeyond reflexivity. In seeking a true dialogical approach we are attemptingto find a method whereby we might analyze our cultural identities throughtheir interactions and our narratives of the past using their interface(Bakhtin, 1984: 2923). In attempting to negotiate the cognitive bordersbetween Israeli and Palestinian views of the past we are, constantly it seems,faced with difficult border crossings of the physical kind. Although we arelimited in our abilities to meet or even talk by phone because of the politicalsituation, we are somewhat skeptical about the utility of purely writtencommunications. The general means of scholarly expression, the writtenmonologue (even the reflexive monologue), is directed toward the self andthe expression of the self rather than another consciousness. In fact, even inour most provocative written pronouncements, we generally do not expectto receive a response that could radically alter our perceptions.

E-mail has provided a somewhat imperfect answer to this dilemma.Castells (2000: 390) suggests that e-mail does not substitute for personalcommunication as much as it does for telephone communication, for whichmodern technology (fax and voice-mail) has succeeded in erecting more,rather than less, barriers. As a hybrid of written and oral communication(Aycock, 1995) Internet communication is, as yet, unregulated by govern-ment and combines both elements of individual privacy and communalactivities. When we are using it, we are alone with it yet the Internet alsooffers a means of calling up and collectivizing the memories of our inter-actions surely one of its most useful advantages for our project.

Because of our various joint ventures, we have been regular e-mail corre-spondents since before the Al-Aqsa Intifada began in the fall of 2000. We

06 Scham (to/d) 22/8/03 1:10 pm Page 405


continued our correspondence through the days and months of closures,assassinations, sieges, curfews, attacks and bombing that followed. We haveelected to reproduce an edited version of our dialogue rather than a jointlyauthored analysis of it because, as we look back on this, we also see ourexchanges as fairly accurate reflection of the ways in which we were bothexperiencing the war. Adels contributions to the theoretical discussion,written from a Ramallah under siege and subjected to increasing destruc-tion, often seem to be filled with despair but also, surprisingly pragmaticand hopeful; while Sandras, written from a Jerusalem where suicidebombings were becoming an almost daily occurrence, sometimes expressthe prevailing sense of depression and ennui there.

DIALOGUE

We became engaged in a theoretical discussion of the different ways Israelisand Palestinians use the past, beginning with Sandras initial query ondeveloping a project in September of 2000. Adels response to the proposalwas as follows:

Adel Yahya: I am very interested in such a project. In my opinion, nowherein the world has archaeology been manipulated as an ideological toolas much as here in the Middle East. Archaeology in the Holy Landwas not only used to justify Israels claims, but to falsify and deny ourclaims and narratives. We see this conflict as not fought by means ofmachine guns and fighter jets alone, but also through books and inschool curriculums and on computer screens. I very much appreciateyour efforts and good intentions. We will always be keen on workingand cooperating with you on projects such as the one you mentioned.One can talk in great detail about how history plays no less of a rolein the life of the Palestinians than that of the Israelis, if not more. Ihave been interviewing men and women about this subject lately andcan assure you that this is a very emotional matter to the people andignoring or denying it will only make things worse.

SS: I guess I would agree with you about the role that the past has inIsraeli life, but I have a hard time convincing people here [in Israel]that archaeology goes beyond the Iron Age and that sites like theSheikhs tomb in Nablus (Josephs tomb) and the Haram al-Sharifare archaeological as well as sacred sites. Part of what I saw with theSharon visit [to the Haram al-Sharif ], disaster that it wasand the follow-up in the Israeli news media was such a lack of under-standing about the place, even as merely an archaeological orhistorical site. Granted, I am a lot less interested in the religious

06 Scham (to/d) 22/8/03 1:10 pm Page 406


implications since Im not a Muslim nor am I particularly devoted tothe idea of the Temple Mount but I still think that knowing whatthe site means in the past as well as the present would tell us a greatdeal.

Recently while doing research on the architecture of the Dome ofthe Rock I read several texts which talked about the building andparticularly the Inscriptions being a memorial to monotheistic Abra-hamic faiths and it seemed rather nice to me to think of this beauti-ful building as representing the whole history of the religioustraditions associated with the site [Authors note: Grabar, 1978]. Itreminded me of your tours in which you discussed the strong elementof cultural continuity in Palestinian culture from ancient timesforward. Unfortunately, however, it occurs to me that if this viewwere more popular, religious Israelis would only use it as an excuseto take it over.

The first thing that occurred to me when this crisis began was thatthe past figured largely in everything. A lot of the putative Biblicalsites are in Palestinian areas. What is happening now to these sites?Obviously the best way to really talk about these things is face-to-face but do you think it would be possible to arrange a meeting now?

AY: Right now, the political situation is not leaving us any breathing spaceto act on many subjects including our work itself. It is such a difficulttime for all of us in this part of the world. I agree a face-to-facemeeting is preferable but it seems impossible now. We will have tocontinue our discussion by e-mail. How do you want to do this? Isthe line of discussion you expect the practical aspects of our work,or should it be more theoretical?

The situation of all archaeological sites in the West Bank and Gazais disastrous. When Israel handed six major cities in the West Bankand most of the Gaza Strip, over to the Palestinian authority in 1996,as part of the Oslo process, it refused to hand over most archaeo-logical sites, although many of them lie within populated Palestinianareas. The Israeli authorities insisted on having full control overthose sites on the pretext that they are holy to the Jews and the Pales-tinian authority cannot be trusted to look after them. Such sites asHerodion, Sebastia, Tel Al Nasba, Gebion, Beit El, just to name afew, remained in Israeli hands. But the Israeli military authorities,who are in full control of these sites, have unsurprisingly donenothing to upgrade or protect them, while at the same time preventedPalestinians from doing that either.

SS: I think that both the theoretical and the practical are important inthis discussion. I am interested in various aspects of Palestinianarchaeology and history, struggles for cultural identity, a right to a

06 Scham (to/d) 22/8/03 1:10 pm Page 407


remembered presence as Edward Said calls it and the aspects ofcultural continuity from ancient times forward that Ive heard youspeak about. The Al-Aqsa Intifada is partly, it occurs to me, aboutall of these things. Do you think that anything positive for archae-ology can come from all of this?

AY: Unfortunately, I think that this long conflict is a huge set back forarchaeology. It has rapidly eroded both of our economies and notonly have archaeological activities ceased here but previously exca-vated sites have deteriorated. Our colleague, Dr Ann Killebrew fromHaifa University, told me that Israel cant pay for the maintenanceand upkeep of (their own) historical sites inside Israel let alone doanything about sites in the occupied territories: West Bank and Gaza.

The effects of this siege have been devastating on us. We haveshortages in all commodities. Except for a very small advantagedgroup of corrupt officials, we are all now feeling the consequences ofthe closure. Unemployment rates are sky rocketing, the officialfigures estimate them at around 60 per cent, while the truth isprobably higher than 90 per cent if we consider the many local busi-nesses and organizations who have kept their employees even thoughthey lost their work. The rate of unemployment amongst Palestini-ans, especially in rural areas, has encouraged them to loot andvandalize unprotected sites in order to peddle finds on the poorlyregulated Israeli antiquities market. In addition, once flourishingtourist industries such as ceramics, olive-wood carving, embroideryand traditional glass are on the verges of collapse. This is the tragedyof our situation that very few people are able to comprehend. Thewar has shattered lives, ruined our economy and almost destroyedour cultural heritage.

SS: I recently saw [Shimon] Peres on TV and for a period of time he wasmuttering the right things or at least things I didnt violentlydisagree with but at one point in the questioning he became exas-perated and talked about Palestinian history as being recent and tosome extent invented and implied that there was really no such thing.It seems to me that if Peres is talking like this there isnt much hopefor any other politicians to acknowledge the presence of the Pales-tinian past. To me the Haram al-Sharif is of great historical andarchaeological interest. To a Muslim, it is these things and muchmore. To a fanatic Jew, it is in the way of the third temple. To manyIsraelis, it is simply irrelevant.

I think it would be good if we could make a very strong statementabout the importance of getting people to understand the differentmeanings of the past. Israelis will often say that Palestinians have nounderstanding of the Jewish attachment to the Temple Mount and

06 Scham (to/d) 22/8/03 1:10 pm Page 408


they even speculate that any work done by the Waqf [the Muslimreligious trust] there is to wipe out the Jewish presence. However,it seems to me that if these people want someone to respect the placefor what is not in evidence, that is, the Temple, Israelis need to bemore honest about acknowledging what is in evidence there that is,stop referring to the area as the Temple Mount exclusively and stoppresenting it on maps and in tourist literature overlaid by thosefantasy transparencies of the temple.

AY: Israeli Jews have always based their claim to the Holy Land onancient biblical accounts even without any real archaeologicalevidence. Palestinian Arabs have always cited more recent history,but now are beginning to use ancient historical events to justifyour/their claim to the land. The question is, has this done archae-ology of the Holy Land any good in the past? Is it doing it any goodnow and in the future? I think the answer is a straight no. Jews alsotalk about their suffering in the Holocaust to justify their claims.Palestinians feel it is not their problem. The Holocaust is not theirfault. Its a European phenomenon and they had nothing to dowith it.

SS: As someone who has led tours to Israel for Palestinians you musthave been confronted on a number of occasions by Holocaust memo-rials here. How do the Palestinians you know look at these places?

AY: When we were in Akka someone suggested we visit the [Holocaust]museum around there. Most of the people resented it because theyfelt that the museum is built on our Palestinian land and why shoulda museum about the Holocaust be built on occupied Palestinianland? That was the initial response. Those who thought it was a goodexperience said, We have to learn from these people how to expressour own disaster, our own memory. That was the only rationale theyfound for themselves to see anything about the Holocaust. Other-wise, they saw the Jews as having illegally built a museum on ouroccupied land and then turning around and trying to convince us thattheir Holocaust justifies the suffering we have been subjected to from1948 to the present. It is almost impossible to bring up this topic toPalestinians and even more so to other Arabs outside of Palestine.Palestinian intellectuals, however, can understand listening to some-thing about the Holocaust because they feel victimized and there-fore, they understand the language of victims.

SS: Its ironic that Israeli and Palestinian memories of the Past are basedon a history of disastrous contacts with European cultures in theHolocaust and the Crusades. All of this grandstanding has been amajor problem for the people who work in this region but it seems

06 Scham (to/d) 22/8/03 1:10 pm Page 409


that Palestinians in recent years have concentrated on developingtheir own views of the past focusing less on Al Naqba, than onestablishing their sense of rootedness in the land and Palestinianarchaeologists consistently argue that many sites in the region displaya remarkable cultural continuity from the Bronze Ages into themodern period. Towns often have names that reflect those listed inancient records and the traditional agro-pastoralist village subsist-ence strategies seen in more modern times had very ancient originsin Palestine [Authors note: Nashef, 2000]. Do you think that theseare compelling arguments even in the face of Jewish assertions thathistorical, religious and linguistic continuity supports their claims tothe land? Do you think that your training as an archaeologist hasbeen helpful in looking at the future of modern Palestine?

AY: My training in archaeology helped me to realize the importance ofPalestine to world civilization. Palestine formed the stage for import-ant historical and Biblical events of the Old and New Testaments. Inan area of no more than 6500 square kilometers, the PalestinianTerritories encompass some of the most important sites in worldheritage. This is the land of Jerusalem, Jericho and Hebron, amongthe earliest known permanent human settlements. I think that thePalestinian people are the official guardians of this heritage, with theresponsibility to preserve it for all nationalities.

As an emerging state, however, Palestine is not in a good positionto do this. We have to develop a strategy which could satisfy thedemands of conservation, research, public access, tourism andperhaps most crucially, religious and political sensitivities. I thinkthat we have a role to play in providing a framework to maximize theenjoyment of the regions heritage, both for the Palestinian peopleand for visitors from abroad. This includes the study of history andarchaeology of Palestine and encouraging the dissemination of know-ledge through access to sites and provision of educational material.

EPILOGUE

Because of the difficulties in achieving any meetings between our twogroups, our project has proceeded through separate actions punctuated byface-to-face discussions carefully arranged in foreign countries. Our firstsession was at Catalhoyuk in Turkey, a venue that could not have been moreappropriate given Hodders innovative work on applied reflexive archae-ology there (Hodder, 2000). Turkey has also been the neutral ground ofchoice for other meetings between Israelis and Palestinians since the newIntifada began.

06 Scham (to/d) 22/8/03 1:10 pm Page 410


Over the course of the next four days, in August of 2002, we had a seriesof friendly discussions. As so often happens at these kinds of conferencesour most important meetings took place outside of the joint meeting rooms.Two young mothers in the group, Israeli and Palestinian, talked about howmuch they worried about their infant daughters during the current politicalsituation. One of the PACE project coordinators poignantly told us howthe smell of manure in Cuchikoy (the local Turkish village) reminded himof growing up in a Bedouin camp in the Judean Desert. He was enthusias-tically supported in this view by an Israeli in our group, who ferventlymissed the northern agricultural kibbutz where he was born. One of thePalestinians casually sat down with a group of Polish archaeologistsworking at the site and began conversing in Czech, a language that wasclose enough to theirs to permit understanding, which he had learned as astudent in what was then Czechoslovakia.

Jerusalem was, not surprisingly, the catalyst for some brief discord. Wedid not come to Turkey to discuss politics but politics followed us there.Later, in an e-mail to those of us on the Israeli team, one of the Palestin-ian women there tried to explain. She wrote: Though we tried to avoid thepolitical discussion, some hot topics had been raised. You know national-ism comes out everywhere. I noticed that every national team workingthere was gathering and sitting to eat at the same table and even they havetheir own methodology on work. So what about Palestinians who are unitedbeing occupied, collectively punished, struggling to achieve their rights ofland and independence.

We spent our last evening in Turkey together in a caf. All of us gatheredat one table. We represented a rather strange tableau to the others in thecaf, native Turks who seldom see tourists. As we left, one of them askedus, in halting English, where we were all from. An Israeli Army reservistin the Haifa group, answered Palestine. The next day, at the end of ourmeeting, one of the Palestinians, someone who had lost a close relative toan Israeli bullet early in the Intifada, somewhat diffidently suggested thatwe sing a song he had learned at a conference in Israel. The Israeli Jewsamong us knew the song in Hebrew (an old Hasidic tune) and Odeh taughtit to his colleagues in Arabic. The words, roughly translated, are: All theworld is a narrow bridge the most important thing is to have no fear.

Acknowledgements

To the other principals on the project: Ann Killebrew of Pennsylvania StateUniversity (also representing the University of Haifa), Rachel Hachlili of theUniversity of Haifa, Odeh Muhamad Issa Baiatneh and Jamal Moussa Jaafra ofPACE for their vital contributions to the creation of this article and to the successof the project and to Ian Hodder, whose generous hospitality at Catalhoyuk madeour first large group meeting so memorable.

06 Scham (to/d) 22/8/03 1:10 pm Page 411


References

Abu El-Haj, N. (1998) Translating Truths: Nationalism, the Practice of Archaeologyand the Remaking of Contemporary Jerusalem, American Ethnologist 25: 16688.

Abu El-Haj, N. (2002) Facts on the Ground: Archaeological Practice and TerritorialSelf-fashioning in Israeli Society. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Appadurai, A. (2001) The Globalization of Archaeology and Heritage, Journal ofSocial Archaeology 1(1): 3549.

Arnold, B. (1990) The Past as Propaganda: Totalitarian Archaeology in NaziGermany, Antiquity 64: 46478.

Aycock, A. (1995) Technologies of the Self: Foucault and Internet Discourse,Journal of Computer Mediated Communication 1(2): http://jcmc.huji.ac.il?vol1/issue2/aycock.html

Bakhtin, M. (1994) Discourse in Life and Discourse in Art (original text writtenin 1926), in P. Morris (ed.) The Bakhtin Reader, pp. 16174. London: Arnold.

Benvenisti, M. (2000) Sacred Landscape: The Buried History of the Holy Land Since1948. (trans.) Maxime Kaufman-Lacusta and Benvenisti, Meron. Berkeley, CA:University of California Press.

Bhabha, H. (1990) DissemiNation: Time, Narrative and the Margins of the ModernNation, in H. Bhabha (ed.) Nation and Narration, pp. 291322. London:Routledge.

Bond, G. and A. Gilliam (1994) Power/knowledge, in G. Bond and A. Gilliam(eds) Social Construction of the Past: Representation as Power, pp. 78109.London: Routledge.

Bourdieu, P. (1990) In Other Words: Essays toward a Reflexive Sociology. Stanford:Stanford University Press.

Brown, K. (1994) Seeing Stars: Character and Identity in the Landscapes ofModern Macedonia, Antiquity 68: 78496.

Brown, K. (1998) Contests of Heritage and the Politics of Preservation in theFormer Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, in L. Meskell (ed.) ArchaeologyUnder Fire: Nationalism, Politics and Heritage in the Eastern Mediterranean andMiddle East, pp. 6886. London: Routledge.

Buck, P. (1994) Dependent Development in the United States South, in G. Bondand A. Gilliam (eds) Social Construction of the Past: Representation As Power,pp. 2943. London: Routledge.

Castaneda, Q. (1996) In the Museum of Maya Culture: Touring Chichen Itza.Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.

Castells, M. (2000) The Rise of the Network Society, The Information Age:Economy, Society and Culture, Vol 1. Oxford: Blackwell Science.

Derrida, J. (1973) Speech and Phenomena. Evanston: Northwestern UniversityPress.

Derrida, J. (1976) Of Grammatology. Baltimore, MD: John Hopkins UniversityPress.

Finkelstein, I. and N. Silberman (2001) The Bible Unearthed: Archaeologys NewVision of Ancient Israel and the Origin of its Sacred Texts. New York: The FreePress.

Foucault, M. (1970) The Order of Things. An Archaeology of the Human Sciences.London: Routledge.

06 Scham (to/d) 22/8/03 1:10 pm Page 412


Foucault, M. (1972) The Archaeology of Knowledge (trans.) A.M. Sheridan Smith.New York: Pantheon Books.

Franklin, M. (1997) Power to the people: Sociopolitics and the Archaeology ofBlack Americans, Historical Archaeology 31(3): 3650

Franklin, M. (1998) Comments on Perspectives on the Evolution of AfricanAmerican Culture: The Historical Archaeology of the Tenant Community at theLevi Jordan Plantation , paper presented at the Society of Historical Archae-ology Conference, Atlanta, Georgia, 1 September.

Gero, J. (1995) Railroading Epistemology: Paleoindians and Women, in I. Hodder,M. Shanks, A. Alexandri et al. (eds) Interpreting Archaeology: Finding Meaningin the Past, pp. 17580. London: Routledge.

Giddens, A. (1991) The Consequences of Modernity. Cambridge: Polity Press.Glock, A. (1987) Cultural Bias in Archaeology. Republished in T. Kapitan (ed.)

Archaeology, History and Culture in Palestine and the Near East: Essays inMemory of Albert E. Glock, pp. 32442. Atlanta: Scholars Press.

Glock, A. (1990) Archaeology as Cultural Survival: The Future of the PalestinianPast. Republished in T. Kapitan (ed.) History and Culture in Palestine and theNear East: Essays in Memory of Albert E. Glock, pp. 34365. Atlanta: ScholarsPress.

Gouldner, A.W. (1970) The Coming Crisis of Western Sociology. New York: BasicBooks.

Grabar, O. (1978) The Formation of Islamic Art. New Haven: Yale University Press.Gramsci, A. (1971) Selections from the Prison Notebook, (trans and ed.) Q. Hoare

and G. Nowell Smith. London: Lawrence and Wishart.Habermas, J. (1981) The Theory of Communicative Action, Vol. 1. (trans.) T.

McCarthy. Boston: Beacon.Habermas, J. (1996) Between Facts and Norms: Contributions to a Discourse Theory

of Law and Democracy. (trans.) W. Rehg. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Hamilakis, Y. (1999) La Trahision Archeologues? Archaeological Practice as Intel-

lectual Activity in Postmodernity, Journal of Mediterranean Archaeology 12(1):6079.

Hammami, R. and S. Tamari (2001) The Battle for Jerusalem, Jerusalem QuarterlyFile 10.

Hassasian, M. (2001) Historical Dynamics Shaping Palestinian National Identity,Palestine-Israel Journal 8/9(4/1): 5060.

Hodder, I. (1992) Theory and Practice in Archaeology. London: Routledge.Hodder, I. (1998) The Past as Passion and Play: Catalhoyuk as a Site of Conflict in

the Construction of Multiple Pasts, in L. Meskell (ed.) Archaeology Under Fire:Nationalism, Politics and Heritage in the Eastern Mediterranean and Middle East,pp. 12439. London: Routledge.

Hodder, I. (1999) The Archaeological Process: An Introduction. Oxford andMalden, MA: Blackwell.

Hodder, I. (ed.) (2000) Towards a Reflexive Method in Archaeology: The Exampleof Catalhoyuk, McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research/British Insti-tute of Archaeology at Ankara. Monograph No. 28.

Khalidi, R. (1997) Palestinian Identity: The Construction of Modern NationalConsciousness. New York, NY: Columbia University Press.

Leone, M. (1992) A Multicultural African-American Historical Archaeology:

06 Scham (to/d) 22/8/03 1:10 pm Page 413


How to Place Archaeology in the Community in a State Capital, paperpresented at the Annual Meeting of the American Anthropological Association,Washington, DC, 15 November.

Leone, M., P. Mullins, M. Creveling, L. Hurst, B. Jackson-Nash, L. Jones, H. Kaiser,G. Logan and M. Warner (1995) Can an African-American Historical Archae-ology be an Alternative Voice?, in I. Hodder, M. Shanks, A. Alexandri et al.(eds) Interpreting Archaeology: Finding Meaning in the Past, pp. 11024. London:Routledge.

McDavid, C. (1997) Descendants, Decisions and Power: The public Interpretationof the Archaeology of the Levi Jordan Plantation, Historical Archaeology 31(3):1535.

McDavid, C. (1999) Contemporary Conversations About the Archaeology ofSlavery and Tenancy: Collaboration, Descendants and Computers, Paperpresented at the 4th World Archaeological Congress, University of Cape Town,South Africa.

Meskell, L. (1998) Introduction: Archaeology Matters, in L. Meskell (ed.) Archae-ology Under Fire: Nationalism, Politics and Heritage in the Eastern Mediterraneanand Middle East, pp. 12. London: Routledge.

Nashef, K. (2000) Khirbet Birzeit, Journal of Palestinian Archaeology 1(1): 132.Nur el-Din (2000) Domestic Architecture as a Reflection of the Inter-relationships

Between Different Groups, paper presented at the Conference on the Trans-mission and Assimilation of Culture in the Near East, Jerusalem, February.

Orser, C. (1992) Beneath the Material Surface of Things: Commodities, Artifactsand Slave Plantations, Historical Archaeology 26(3): 95104.

Orser, C. (1998) The challenge of race to American historical archaeology,American Anthropologist 100(3): 6618.

Pappe, I. (1994) The Making of the Arab-Israeli Conflict, 19471951. London: I BTauris & Co Ltd.

Paynter, R. and R. McGuire (1991) The Archaeology of Inequality: MaterialCulture, Domination and Resistance, in R. McGuire and R. Paynter (eds) TheArchaeology of Inequality, pp. 127. Oxford: Blackwell Science.

Pollner, M. (1991) Left of Ethnomethodology: The Rise and Decline of RadicalReflexivity, American Sociological Review 56(June): 37080.

Rogan, E.L. and A. Shlaim (eds) (2001) The War for Palestine: Rewriting the Historyof 1948. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Said, E. (1978) Orientalism. London: Routledge.Said, E. (1994) Culture and Imperialism. New York: Vintage Books.Said, E. (1999) Palestine: Memory, Invention and Space, in I. Abu-Lughod, R.

Heacock and K. Nashef (eds) The Landscape of Palestine: Equivocal Poetry, pp.330. Birzeit-Palestine: Birzeit University Publications.

Scham, S. (1998) Mediating Nationalism and Archaeology: A Matter of Trust?,American Anthropologist 100(2): 3018.

Scham, S. (2001a) A Fight Over Sacred Turf Who Controls Jerusalems HoliestShrine?, Archaeology 54(6): 627, 724.

Scham, S. (2001b) The Archaeology of the Disenfranchised, Journal of Archaeo-logical Method and Theory 8(2): 183213.

Scham, S. (2002) The Days of the Judges: When Men and Women Were Animalsand Trees Were Kings, Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 97: 3764.

06 Scham (to/d) 22/8/03 1:10 pm Page 414


Scham, S. (in press) From the River Unto the Land of the Philistines: The Memoryof Iron Age Landscapes in Modern Visions of Palestine, in M. Dorrian, (ed.)Landscapes and Politics, pp. 749. Edinburgh: Black Dog Press.

Segev, T. (1999) One Palestine, Complete. New York: Henry Holt.Shapira, A. (1996) Introduction, in J. Reinharz and A. Shapira (eds) Essential

Papers on Zionism, pp. 132. New York: New York University Press.Steier, F. (ed.) (1991) Research and Reflexivity. London: Sage.Sternhell, Z. (1999) The Founding Myths of Israel. Princeton, NJ: Princeton

University Press.Trigger, B. (1984) Alternative Archaeologies: Nationalist, Colonialist, Imperialist,

Man 19: 35570.Trigger, B. (1995) Romanticism Nationalism and Archaeology, in P. Kohl and C.

Fawcett (eds) Nationalism, Politics and he Practice of Archaeology, pp. 26379.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Vizenor, G. (1986) Bone Courts the Rights and Narrative Representations of TribalBones, American Indian Quarterly 10(4): 31931.

Wasserstein, B. (2001) Divided Jerusalem: The Struggle for the Holy City. NewHaven: Yale University Press.

Yahya, A. (1998) The Archaeological Sites of the West Bank and Gaza. Al Bireh:Abu Ghosh Press.

Yahya, A. (1999a) Who Was Here First?. . . and Does It Matter?, paper presentedat Who Was Here First? conference, Yakar Center for Social Concern, Jerusalem,12 May.

Yahya, A. (1999b) The Palestinian Refugees, 19491998, p. 94. Al Bireh: Abu GhoshPress.

Ziadeh, G. (1995) Ethno-history and Reverse Chronology at Tiinnik, a Pales-tinian Village, Antiquity 69(266): 9991014.

Ziadeh-Seely, G. (1999) Abandonment and Site Formation Processes: An Ethno-graphic and Archaeological Study, in T. Kapitan (ed.) Archaeology, History andCulture in Palestine and the Near East: Essays in Memory of Albert E. Glock,pp. 12750. Atlanta: Scholars Press.

06 Scham (to/d) 22/8/03 1:10 pm Page 415


SANDRA ARNOLD SCHAM is an archaeologist and anthropologistwho has lived and worked in the Middle East for over six years. She is theeditor of the journal Near Eastern Archaeology,published by the AmericanSchools of Oriental Research. She is also a contributing editor to Archae-ology magazine and serves as a co-coordinator of the Wye River Peopleto People Project on Recognizing and Preserving the Common Heritageof Israel and the Palestinian National Authority and of the Negev BedouinIdentity Project. She obtained her doctorate at the Catholic University ofAmerica in Washington, DC and formerly held the positions of AssociateCurator at the Pontifical Biblical Institute Museum and Lecturer atJerusalem University College, both in Jerusalem, Israel.

ADEL YAHYA is the Founder and Director of The Palestinian Associ-ation for Cultural Exchange (PACE) a Palestinian non-governmental,non-profit organization. Its main goals are to promote awareness ofPalestinian cultural heritage through cultural tourism, scientific researchand public education programs. Dr Yahya, who was born in the JalazoneRefugee Camp near Ramallah, received his PhD in History & Archaeologyfrom the Free University of Berlin-Germany. He has taught at BirzeitUniversity and at the Jerusalem Open University in Ramallah.

06 Scham (to/d) 22/8/03 1:10 pm Page 416

06 Scham 2003 Heritage & Reconciliation

Documents

Transcript of 06 Scham 2003 Heritage & Reconciliation