The Politics and Practice of Archaeology in Conflict

Abstract

This introductory paper reviews recent writings on archaeology and confl ict, setting the other contributions to this volume into context. We draw attention to the political nature of archaeological work, and to the problems of reconciling professional interest in the protection and management of cultural property with needs of communities affected by war. We focus on two areas of current concern -the ethical and moral dimension to professional conduct, and the need to reconcile post-processual critiques of practice with the need to draw on empirical science in the competent conduct of work -fi nding middle ground in both areas of debate. We also conclude that heritage management and archaeological practice have an important contribution to make in the rehabilitation of war-torn societies, but that the top-down approaches that are most widely favoured can fail to meet the needs of local communities. Best archaeological practice should build from an understanding of local socio-political and cultural power structures, draw on assessments of need, and build upon a notion of heritage that moves beyond the purely materialistic. The concept of heritage as 'care' is perhaps more important to our work than that of 'curation'.

Post-conflict ethics, archaeology and archaeological heritage: a call for discussion

“…It is often during the immediate post-conflict phase that power may be wielded without consultation and decisions made very quickly. The phases immediately prior to the end of a conflict and early in post-conflict are very often those in which far-reaching political action is taken in a short time as stakeholders seek to maximize opportunities offered in the social vacuums created by conflict, as found in post-war Beirut (Perring 2009). Increasing work in post-conflict zones has led to a great deal of thought and discussion focused on re-working protocols and establishing good working practices for archaeology and heritage conservation (e.g.…”

“…The very nature of many post-conflict situations also means there is often an urgency around stabilizing, demolishing or rebuilding the built and archaeological heritage. Such actions may take place with little, if any, central control or planning and in some situations may be exacerbated if there is a lack of local specialist skills in core disciplines whether archaeology, conservation or architecture (see post-war Beirut for example, Perring 2009;Sandes 2010). As demonstrated by the examples of Angkor Wat and Mes Aynak (and also in many other places, including Syria), there may also be funding issues where available money for activities such as reconstruction, excavation and community involvement is often tied to particular donor aims (e.g.…”

Archaeological Ethnography: A Multitemporal Meeting Ground for Archaeology and Anthropology

“…Studies on the contemporary political economy and sociopolitics of archaeology (e.g. and warfare and in the "war on terror" (e.g., Albarella 2009, Crossland 2009, Emberling 2008, Hamilakis 2009, Myers 2010, Perring & Linde 2009, Price 2009, Silliman 2008b, Stone 2009) have proliferated, challenging further the temporal distanciation upon which modernist archaeology was founded.…”

Conserving cultural values of heritage buildings from the facilities management perspective in Malaysia

“…However, conflicts still arise among stakeholders actively engaged in conserving CVHB using VBM (Finlayson, 2011). Moreover, these conflicts also exist in the field of cultural heritage conservation management in the decision making process in conserving cultural HBs (Perring and Linde, 2009;Rowlands and Butler, 2007;Tunbridge and Ashworth, 1996). The conflicts among stakeholders lead to delays in the process of conservation and consequently contribute to the loss of CVHB and constraints in the cultural heritage management aspects.…”