World Archaeological Congress Condemns Israel
Claire Smith Claire.Smith@flinders.edu.au
Thu, 8 Jan 2004 10:56:25 -0600
Media Release: World Archaeological Congress Condemns Israel's Destruction of Archaeological Sites Date: Wednesday, 7 January 2004 The destruction of archaeological and heritage sites in Palestine by the state of Israel is today condemned by the international association for archaeologists, the World Archaeological Congress. "The destruction of heritage sites in cities such as Bethlehem, Nablus and Hebron by Israeli forces is of tremendous concern. Considering the historical significance of these cities to so many cultures, this is an international tragedy." Dr. Claire Smith, President of the World Archaeological Congress, said today. "'There is a pattern of destruction here and at this moment there are unconfirmed reports that the Israeli military is initiating an operation in the old city of Nablus in the west bank targeting an area in close proximity to AbdulaHadi Palace. This palace was constructed during the Ottoman period in 1855 for Mohamad Bek Abdul- Hadi, and is considered to be one of the significant architectural sites in the city. It is unacceptable for any country to destroy archaeological sites. In this case, in particular, it is attacking another nation's cultural identity. The confirmed destruction of other sites includes sites partly excavated by the Israel Antiquities Authority between 1967 and 1993. Of particular concern is the destruction of heritage sites by the wall being constructed by the Israeli Government in the Palestinian territories.=E4 The World Archaeological Congress called on the Israeli Government to respect the UNESCO 2003 Universal Declaration on Cultural Diversity, which supports the right of all nations to retain their cultural identity for the benefit of present and future generations. The World Archaeological Congress also called upon governments worldwide to request compliance by Israel with UNESCO 1954 Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict and its First and Second Protocols which aims to protect the cultural assets of a country in the event of armed conflict. End Please see below for background information on WAC Claire Smith, President, World Archaeological Congress, Department of Archaeology, Flinders University, Adelaide, South Australia Email: claire.smith@flinders.edu.au, Phone: +61 (0) 2 4969 2668 Najat El Hafi, Member of WAC Council, Email: <mailto:nelhafi@hotmail.com>nelhafi@hotmail.com Phone: +32 264 45 787 Cell: 00 32 472 31 1412 Kathy Tubb, University College, London Email: <mailto:k.tubb@ucl.ac.uk>k.tubb@ucl.ac.uk Phone: +44 (0)20 7679 1533 Jo Smith, WAC Media Adviser Email: <mailto:josmith@cia.com.au>josmith@cia.com.au Phone: +61 (0)2 9557 4253 Cell: 0411 888 664 Background on WAC The World Archaeological Congress is the major global organisation in archaeology, with elected representation from all parts of the world. It holds an international congress every four years to promote the exchange of the results of archaeological research; professional training and public education for disadvantaged nations, groups and communities; the empowerment and betterment of Indigenous groups and =46irst Nations peoples; and the conservation of archaeological sites. The last Congress, WAC-5, was held from June 21-June 26 at the Catholic University of America in Washington, D.C. WAC-5 was the first full World Archaeological Congress to be held in North America. It was attended by some 1,200 archaeologists, native peoples and international scholars from some 75 nations. The Congress Patron for WAC-5 was Harriet Mayor Fulbright. Patrons of previous WAC Congresses include Nelson Mandela and Prince Charles. WAC-5 was held in partnership with the Smithsonian Institution's National Museum of Natural History and National Museum of the American Indian, and in collaboration with the Getty Conservation Institute. -- Claire Smith President, World Archaeological Congress Department of Archaeology, Flinders University, GPO Box 2100, Adelaide, SA. 5001. Australia Ph: 61 (0)8 8201 2336 Fax: 61 (0)8 8201 3845 <http://ehlt.flinders.edu.au/archaeology> <http://www.american.edu/wac5>
January 13, 2004
Dr. Clair Smith
President, World Archaeological Congress
Department of Archaeology
Flinders University
Adelaide, South Australia
Dear Dr. Smith,
Subject: The WAC Accusation of Israeli Destruction of Archaeological Sites
I have read your e-mail media release dated 7 January 2004 addressed to the world archaeological community at the conclusion of the Fifth Archaeological Conference held in June, 2003, at the Catholic University of America in Washington, D.C., in which Israel stands accused of destroying archaeological sites. I refer, as well; to the accusations at the Congress by Dr. Najat el-Hafi that appear to have influenced the Congress' decision concerning Israel's "destruction" of Palestinian antiquities, an unacceptable one-sided judgment not worthy of the WAC.
As to the matter itself: The concept of separate Israeli (Jewish) and Palestinian (Muslim) archaeological cultural heritage is an unknown concept to me as an Israeli archaeologist. The cultural heritage of the Land of the Bible is common to all past and present groups, religions, nations, and tribes in the area, or to those that look upon this land as being holy to three monotheistic religions. From the aspect of cultural heritage, Tel Shechem (Nablus) and Tel el-Jib (both within Palestinian Authority), and Tel Megiddo or Tel Beersheba (both within the bounds of the State of Israel) are of equal importance to me as an Israeli, and I believe to Dr. Najat as well. By the same token, the Ottoman palace of Mohammed Bek Abdul-Hadi in Nablus is as important a cultural heritage site to both Israelis and Palestinians. Cultural heritage should not be confused with territorial conflicts.
Concerning Israeli observance of the 1954 Hague Convention, I would like to remind you and the entire archaeological community, that the only country in the world which returned antiquities to a neighboring country, as required by the Convention, is Israel. In 1994 Israel returned to Egypt all of the antiquities from Israeli salvage excavations in the Sinai Peninsula, up to the last pottery shard! It was my honor to head that project. The antiquities were returned in excellent condition and meticulous order accompanied by scientific reports and the required drawings. This was not only because we are signatories to the Hague convention, but also due to the fact that we respect the cultural heritage of the Sinai and recognize that the proper place for those antiquities is in Sinai.
In your media release you claimed that, between the years 1967 to 1973, the Israel Antiquities Authority excavated in Nablus and other West Bank sites. This is patently untrue! The Israel Antiquities Authority (IAA) is charged with the enforcement of the Israeli Law of Antiquities, which is applicable in only areas where Israeli law is in force. The IAA only determines archaeological policy, and issues excavation licenses within the borders of Israel. Israel has not applied its own laws to the West Bank and Gaza Strip. The existing laws in those areas are the Jordanian law (in the West Bank) and the Egyptian law (in the Gaza Strip). Therefore, until the transfer of responsibility in Nablus to the Palestinian Authority, the person responsible for enforcing Jordanian law was the Archaeological Staff Officer appointed by the Civil Administration. That body-an arm of the Israel Defense Forces (IDF)-is legally responsible for the civilian matters in those territories. The Archaeological Staff Officer is not subordinate to nor a part of the IAA. Over the years, the Archaeological Staff Office did indeed conduct many salvage excavations in Nablus and its surroundings due to its flourishing growth. These excavations are of significant scientific value, having uncovered, inter alia, the Hellenistic city on Mount Gerizim (overlooking Nablus on the south), and the rich heritage of Nablus of the Roman period (Neapolis), as well as the Byzantine and early Islamic periods. The full scientific publication (now in preparation) of these excavations will shed new light on the cultural heritage of Nablus- for Israelis and Palestinians alike and for all those in the world who value science.
On some Arguments Raised in Najat's Lecture:
Israeli archaeology is not conducted on behalf of any ideology, nor does it explicitly serve the heritage of the Jewish people on its land. It is pure science for the purpose of studying the past through its archaeological finds. No one can claim that prehistoric excavations by Israelis are meant to serve the Jewish heritage. No one can claim that the Staff Archaeological Officer excavations in Nablus that uncovered the Hellenistic, Roman, Byzantine and Islamic city aimed to search for Jewish roots in that city. No Israeli scholar that studied the Samaritan burials and synagogues in the Nablus area claims that these belong to the Jewish nation and religion. It is patently clear to us that these are Samaritan items. No one can claim that the hundreds of Byzantine churches and monasteries uncovered in Israel and in the PA areas in the past fifty years serve the claims of the Jewish people to the land. Science is science is science, and heritage is heritage is heritage; they belong to all.
Israeli archaeology is not a means to "underline Jewish historical continuity" in Israel, as Dr. Najat contended. I would be surprised to see one scientific paper published by an Israeli with such a claim. I will be happy to refer Dr. Najat to the latest publications by Professor Israel Finkelstein, a respected archaeologist of the Biblical period in Israel, who advocates a significant reduction of the size of the Judean Kingdom. At the same time, I will be happy to refer him to the major archaeological project directed by the late Professor Benjamin Mazar south of the Haram el-Sherif in Jerusalem, where grand palaces built by Umayyad (Muslim) rulers were uncovered. There is no indication of these palaces before their excavation. They did not appear in any written historical source, until the Israeli excavations discovered them.
I will be happy to refer Dr. Najat to the accepted archaeological terminology in Israel when it was decided to label the periods Umayyad, Abbasid and Fatimid periods with the term "Early Islamic Period" and not with the term used in the rest of the world, "Early Arab Period", because Israeli scholars are well aware that an Arab element existed in the Levant, west of the Jordan since Hellenistic times.
If Dr. Najat had read recent publications by Israeli archaeologists (published also in English) instead of reciting groundless slogans, he would find hundreds of published excavations with strata from Islamic periods, with excavations proving that the pinnacle of church and monastery construction in Israel took place during the Umayyad period under Islamic rule. The IAA is working to change the Law of Antiquities so that the legal definition of "antiquities" will include objects and sites dating from earlier than 1840, and not as in the law today (in effect since the British Mandate), which fixes the date at 1700. The change in this law will give us better tools for preserving sites and finds from the Ottoman period, in which it is universally accepted that the majority of the populations were Palestinians.
Is this what Dr. Najat refers to as archaeology serving Israel's ideology?
The purpose of archaeology is to uncover history. Differing interpretation of archaeological sites should not be based upon the researcher's origins, whether they are Israeli, Palestinian, Australian or others. It may be that the nascent Palestinian archaeology is still somewhat na?ve (and this is natural). Israeli archaeology is more mature.
I agree fully with every word in the concluding paragraph of Dr. Najat's abstract, with the addition of the underlined words: "The violent events of the last two years in the Palestinian Territories and in the State of Israel, have not only caused irreversible damages to many archaeological and historical sites of intrinsic value, but also shattered hopes for a better definition of the present and the future of the cultural heritage of the Holy Land."
In Summary:
The World Archaeological Congress will do well to concentrate on archaeology as a science, and on preserving archaeological and cultural heritage sites. It will also be appreciated were the WAC to sound the alarm for endangered archaeological sites due to armed conflict. But, taking a political position, or providing a stage for only one political position in a conflict, thereby transforming the science of archaeology into a platform for political polemics, is unacceptable. It is clear to every sensible person that "truth" is subjective-each side has its own version. A common cultural heritage of the sons of Abraham-Jews and Arabs-each with divided opinions on the fate of this country, can serve as a lever for fostering peace. A condition for this is that neither side "take possession" of archaeology for its own objectives.
Sincerely,
Dr. Uzi Dahari
Deputy Director
Israel Antiquities Authority
World Archaeological Congress |
Members agree that they have obligations to indigenous peoples and that they shall abide by the following principles:
Members agree that they will adhere to the following rules prior to, during and after their investigations:
The new Code should not be taken in isolation; it was seen by Council as following on from WAC's adoption of the Vermillion Accord passed in 1989 at the South Dakota Inter-Congress.
The Vermillion Accord was adopted in 1989 at the South Dakota WAC Inter-Congress.
Outlook for the World Archaeological Congress
Claire Smith
Flinders University
I have been asked to write about my vision as the incoming President of the World Archaeological Congress (WAC). This is an exciting but challenging task, given the kinds of changes that are occurring within WAC. We are going through a major period of growth, one in which many people's individual visions are being realized. This growth was apparent when some 1,200 people attended at the Fifth World Archaeological Congress (WAC-5), held in Washington DC in June, 2003, under the leadership of Dr Joan Gero, of American University. The 300-odd sessions and activities at WAC-5 highlighted our core strengths, which are our diversity and international representativeness (as outlined in the WAC statutes, see WAC 1990), our dedication to redressing inequality and our commitment to innovation, critique, experiment, and excellence. An appreciation of the richness obtainable from global diversity and a willingness to face the challenges of engaging in social justice issues are integral to WAC and, in fact, were fundamental to the birth of WAC itself. While the genesis of WAC may have strained relations with some organizations, such as the Union Internationale des Sciences Préhistoriques et Protohistoriques (UISPP) and the Society for American Archaeology (SAA), we now have very positive, cooperative relationships with these organizations, making WAC an integral part of what has become a truly world archaeology. As President of WAC, I believe my first task is to preserve and foster those very special qualities of WAC that previous Officers have worked so hard to develop. In doing so, I hope to see WAC become more cohesive, better funded, and more politically effective, able to connect archaeologists throughout the world and support them with practical measures that will benefit their regional communities.
Why have WAC?
WAC is an international non-profit making organisation concerned with all aspects of archaeological theory and practice. Its main concern is with academic issues and questions which benefit from a widely oriented and comparative approach (WAC 1990). Organised into fourteen regions from around the globe, WAC is the only archaeological organization that has elected global representation. But why do we need a global organization of archaeologists? To my mind, a global organisation is justified by three, inter-related factors. The first of these is the study of the commonalities of human existence and comparisons of how those commonalities play out the same or differently in different cultures and over time. The second factor is obtaining comparative perspectives on the contemporary practice of archaeology, including its methodological and theoretical bases, ethical demands, views on the political appropriation of the past, and need for global advocacy for conservation and preservation. The third factor is an ability to bring to bear global power on issues of importance to archaeologists. Engaging with the social and political implications of archaeological work is fundamental to WAC. This is made clear in the second article of the Statutes which states that WAC 'is based on the explicit recognition of the historical and social role, and the political context, of archaeological enquiry, of archaeological organisations, and of archaeological interpretation' (see WAC 1990). Since its inception, WAC has been very effective in this area. It has consistently taken a leadership role in supporting local archaeologists in advocacy for conservation and ethics around the globe. Moreover, it has consistently supported the growth and nurturing of archaeological communities and values in areas where economic and political conditions make it hard to sustain.
What is so special about WAC?
What is it that makes WAC Congresses so different to other archaeological meetings (see comments from WAC-5 delegates)? To my mind, WAC has two special qualities. The first is the sheer diversity of people who attend WAC Congresses. At WAC-5, we had people from 75 countries - and this does not include the diversity of views that are put forward by people from First Nations. This mix produces an extraordinary range of experiences and knowledges. Emerging from this is a commitment to multi-vocality. Clearly, the views of people from 75 countries cannot be transmitted in one voice only. This acknowledgement of multiple views may prove to be a key that opens archaeology as a discipline and career path to members of Indigenous communities. Instead of being a single-voiced, single-minded pursuit of the past, the WAC approach not only recognizes the worth of Indigenous views, it welcomes the addition of new perspectives, and in doing so, may be making archaeology more useful for Native peoples worldwide.
The second thing that is so special to WAC Congresses is our commitment to social justice, apparent not only through political action but also through the manner in which we address such issues. Our direction in this respect was established long ago by WAC's original and early visionaries, in particular by Peter Ucko, Jack Golson, Robert Layton and Larry Zimmerman. We are especially strong on Indigenous issues (see WAC 1989, 1991) and this serves as a model for the decolonisation of other kinds of archaeology. The WAC community is one of likeminded, caring people who are committed and effective, and who are sensitive to the social and political ramifications of archaeology. The degree to which this binds us crystallized for me during WAC-5 when several people commented that they felt they were among friends at WAC, even though they had met many of the people for the first time.
Publishing WAC
In order to achieve our aims during this period of growth we are identifying and pursuing some new objectives. One of our most important goals is a broadening our publication base. Since it was established in 1986, the backbone of WAC has been the Congresses, which are held every four years, the One World Archaeology Series (OWA), which arises from these Congresses and is published by Routledge, and the WAC Bulletin. After WAC-5, other publication opportunities arose and several new World Archaeological Congress book series are emerging. The big difference is that the OWA series of edited books will be complemented by other series featuring both authored and edited books that target key market niches. Foremost amongst these are two new series that are being developed with Altamira Press. The Indigenous Archaeologies Series is committed to the promotion of Indigenous Voice and the empowerment of Indigenous peoples. The Worlds of Archaeology Series not only presents new data but also focuses on how the lived experience of doing archaeology in different parts of the world affects how that data are generated, analysed and presented. What is emerging for WAC is a heightening of our profile, an increase in our impact, the empowerment of our members and the creation of internationally recognised and respected standards of excellence.
If a global organization is needed, it must be more than episodic. It must have a regular constituency, membership, and continuous channels of communication to its member and other stakeholders. We need avenues for on-going dialogue and debate, involving scholars from across the broad range of WAC's constituency, so we can address topical issues in a timely manner. With this in mind, we plan to establish a refereed journal, the World Archaeological Congress Journal, which will be a vehicle for regular communication and outlet for much of our intellectual work. This journal will communicate the latest discoveries and ideas to the wider world and, in particular, act as a forum to bring together the voices of Western and non-Western, Indigenous and non-Indigenous scholars, and other interested stakeholders, wherever they are located. This new journal will replace the World Archaeological Congress Bulletin.
WAC web site
In the immediate future, we need to be strategic in accessing the electronic capabilities of an interconnected world. We need to make more effective use of the Internet in order to promote a sense of group membership and to challenge some of the global inequities about which archaeology should have a voice. WAC sets a foundation for international collaborations and for mentoring across national borders. We all have much to learn from each other. This process broadens our understandings of archaeological method and practice, and can only increase the quality of our work. One of the core successes of WAC has been that of putting like-minded people in touch with each other. WAC has always encouraged archaeologists from diverse backgrounds to share their ideas with others - archaeological self-determination through archaeological interaction. Introductions obtained through WAC are not contingent upon established hierarchies or networks. To build on this, the WAC Executive decided to establish a list-server for WAC members and friends (see http://listserver.flinders.edu.au/mailman/listinfo/wac), which will facilitate global communication in archaeology in all areas of archaeological research and act as a forum for disseminating information relating to WAC.
A new WAC website (http://www.flinders.edu.au/wac) is being developed, guided by a Web Task Force. The new site is being designed to celebrate our global diversity, make information accessible and visible to users and to create a community of practice. Our new web image is a little more institutionalised, reflecting an increased professionalisation that is inevitable, and needed, when an organization grows as quickly as WAC. While we need to be aware that too great a dependence on electronic communication has the potential to disenfranchise some of our membership, the internet also can be a vehicle for 'bottom-up' initiatives. In a sense, activity at a regional level is an ultimate test for this organization, and how we can identify and support regional initiatives has a permanent item on the agenda of foregoing Officers and Executives. A possible answer lies in the new technology, especially if it is backed up by funding at the grassroots level.
Running WAC
Since WAC is going through a period of expansion, our administrative structure has to be shaped to meet new needs. As with all international establishments of this scale, effective organization is a key. One of the changes we are introducing is a series of Standing Committees which will address core issues such as archaeological ethics or teaching and learning. Task Forces will continue to address topical issues such as the illicit trading of artefacts, heritage preservation in regions affected by war, or the coordination of international efforts in repatriation. These task forces are our means for action in political arenas. They are one of the principal ways in which we are able to focus specialist knowledge and provide informed, high-quality advice to governments and other bodies.
Many of the goals of WAC members will continue to be achieved from the bottom-up. Our capacity here needs to be strengthened. In a sense, we have to create a situation in which we can become ourselves. What constitutes 'ourselves' will vary enormously according to the parts of the world in which we live and work. WAC in Japan, for example, will have different needs and a different shape to WAC in India, or Argentina or Nigeria. This diversity is something to be celebrated and encouraged. It can be supported through helping people develop regional alliances and access the resources they need to grow in their own ways. Part of the WAC mission has always been to redress global inequality through making funds held in high-income countries accessible to people in low-income countries. This is a two-way process of educating both funders and fundees. The WAC-5 workshop 'U.S. funding sources for non-U.S. scholars' was a first, important step in this direction. Hosted by the Wenner Gren Foundation, this workshop brought together representatives of six U.S. organizations (Earthwatch International Research, the Foundation for the Advancement of Mesoamerican Studies, the L.S.B. Leakey Foundation, the National Geographic Society, the World Monuments Fund and the Wenner Gren Foundation for the Anthropological Research) who summarised their grant programs in which non U.S. citizens and residents are eligible to compete. This workshop was a practical way of breaking down information barriers and encouraging people from all parts of the world to empower themselves. Future WAC meetings could host a series of workshops on issues such as 'How to approach funders', 'Writing successful grant applications' and so forth. These are simple measures but they have the potential to generate great benefits, and WAC is the right organization to make this happen. As a group we have the expertise, the experience, the networks and, most importantly, the will.
In addition, we are planning to formalise our internal system of grants and awards. WAC needs to provide financial support for a wide range of activities and programmes. It can do so only when we have raised substantial funds, so fundraising and income generation is an urgent concern of the new Executive.
In summary, what new things can we expect for WAC?
The main initiatives are:
These initiatives will be added to our existing programs, which include:
The World Archaeological Congress is a diverse and dynamic, forward-looking community. Our future provides us with both enormous opportunity and enormous responsibility. The vision I present here has been formed through eight years as a member of the Executive and through close and extensive collaboration with my colleagues in the diverse and dynamic community that is the World Archaeological Congress. It is one that can easily be shared by all who are members of WAC and all who should be members of WAC. By working together, we can achieve a more equitable archaeology. Beyond this, a well-structured, properly funded and politically effective WAC has the potential to be a model for the decolonisation of disciplines other than archaeology. Let's see what we can do.
