Tumult On The West Bank As Usual

Here's a paper that I wrote on the endangerment of legitimate archaeology caught up in the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict. I found some of the facts of the case fairly interesting.

---

Ongoing conflicts of national legitimacy, which range from local tension to full-out war, factor heavily into the process of contemporary archaeology. The dangers faced by archaeologists in war zones or areas of nationalistic unrest are numerous; danger to the physical well-being of a researcher is always a possibility, especially if the researcher is employed by a non-neutral party or has a controversial purpose at a site that is disapproved of by a participant in the conflict. A display of this can be seen in the case of Albert Glock, an American archaeologist who was assassinated almost twenty years ago during his work on sites in areas disputed between the Palestinian Authority and the State of Israel. While the case of Dr. Glock is fairly unique in that he was killed outright for as-yet-unknown purposes by an unknown party, his death shows the difficulties faced by archaeologists in zones of ongoing conflict. There are roadblocks present in the path toward an execution of effective archaeological work in Palestine and Israel: active religious and ethnic tension, extremely prevalent poverty, starkly different political opinions and legal disagreements between the powers attempting to exert control over the location of a site are all mud in the water that is proper archaeology within the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. As highlighted in Karen Lange’s “The Stolen Past”, the looting of West Bank sites by professional artifact dealers and their smugglers as well as desperate locals is compounded by a political disunity that prevents any real progress from being done to either prevent the despoiling of sites or make the region safe for proper archaeology.

Archaeology on the West Bank is controversial in part because discoveries at disputed sites may lend legitimacy to either side in the ongoing Israeli-Palestinian conflict. In the eyes of controversial academic Nadia Abu El-Haj, it is not “normal archaeology”: the bias employed in it as well as the dark political implications behind analysis create a difficult scenario for archaeologists . Indeed, nationalism and recognition for legitimacy are two major sources fueling the Levantine dispute and thus much controversy surrounds any archaeological activity pertaining to the region. There is also the possibility that political or religious bias as a result of attempts to gain cultural legitimacy may come into play during the analysis of site results. The sullying of findings by advisors or even the archaeologists themselves in either the Palestinian or Israeli direction is utterly possible and has occurred, according to the studies of Abu El-Haj; she believes that the quest for achieving nationalistic legitimacy through archaeological work has done damage to the archaeological record . In Abu El-Haj’s opinion, it is extremely important for archaeological discoveries to transcend modern-day patrimony or at least avoid directly being influenced by the rivalry over cultural legitimacy in the region . In agreement with this concept is the deceased Albert Glock himself who states that “the “archaeological record” has been selectively used to justify the present occupation” . Glock goes on to state that the West Bank has become victim to “biblical archaeology” – namely, American or European-led archaeological work with the purpose of proving or disproving ancient religious texts .

As of now, Israeli archaeology does not address many important aspects of Israeli history, nor does it properly represent the extreme variety in culture that the region has come to represent historically as well as in contemporary times. A stark focus on Jewish history as opposed to the grander regional history presents a problem in that it puts other cultures and discoveries on a lower tier of importance within the archaeological record. Constant discoveries and study reports executed in the name of reinforcing Israeli legitimacy do not properly investigate the entirety of the archaeological possibilities in the region, nor do they properly serve the discipline of archaeology in that they are skewed results. In the opinion of Abu El-Haj, much of the archaeological studies in the West Bank by Israeli authorities are done in order to find “alleged evidence of the grand architecture and urban splendor of royal cities, of war, heroism and destruction, and of the momentous events in Jewish history” . In doing so, the archaeologists at these disputed sites are downsizing the importance of other cultural presences in the region from the Phoenicians and Romans to the Mamluks and Ottomans. This can be seen through the heavy-handedness of Israeli archaeology: Jewish sites were approached with scrutiny and proper care while other sites of Latin or Arab influence were excavated using equipment such as bulldozers . The damage done to the non-Jewish site invalidates and destroys possible findings there, wounding the archaeological record twofold: not only are nationalistically-influenced findings entering it but the possibility of analysis of the non-Jewish past of the West Bank is reduced due to destruction.

The institution of nationalistic archaeology not only hurts the archaeological record and thus further investigations but also contributes to contemporary political difficulties. As seen in Lange’s “The Stolen Past”, West Bank locals of both Israeli and Palestinian origin have put to use the regional turmoil created by nationalism by raiding unprotected sites in order to make a living. The difficulty of living in the contested region can be seen in the actions of unemployed local men – not professional grave robbers – who are scouring sites in order to survive on a day to day basis; one man in Lange’s article states that in order to feed his family, he must loot to gain money . The low quality of life for those caught up in the conflict presents yet another problem in that it does not foster the growth of a local tradition of archaeology in order to provide an alternative to nationalistic archaeology. Glock notes the disparity between the numbers of Israeli and Palestinian archaeologists and states that there exists no push toward archaeology as a means of combating opposing viewpoints, tracing his reasoning back to the lack of preparation and guidance given to the Palestinians by European powers during the Mandate Period.

Disagreements between the State of Israel and the Palestinian Authority have removed chances of a unilateral attempt to crack down on looting as zones of power and opposing legal statutes prevail over joint efforts. Many sites are not patrolled simply because the zone is disputed, meaning that neither the Palestinians nor the Israelis will risk the loss of life by protecting a site that the other has also claimed. This creates a dire situation for archaeologists because, assuming they are even able to work at a site, the results may be sparse. In speaking of the destruction of cultural legacy, Al-Quds University’s archaeology director Salah Al-Houdalieh states this precisely, commenting that little will be left for the archaeologists who are privileged enough to do West Bank excavations in the future .

Perhaps the most striking example of why a joint effort is utterly necessary to protect West Bank archaeological sites can be seen just at the end of Lange’s article. She details the Palestinian arrest of two men, one a Palestinian and the other Israeli, at Bethlehem; they had been trading in illicit antiquities and were thus subject to arrest under tentative Palestinian law. The resulting punishment for the Palestinian was very light (under fourteen days in prison) and the punishment for the Israeli man was nonexistent as the looting of archaeological sites does not break any Israeli statutes . This damning lack of justice shows the turmoil on the West Bank as caused by opposing nationalistic powers that do not keep in mind the effects of biased historical or archaeological work. Nationalistic archaeology is pushing the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict in the wrong direction: biased work presents biased results which are then used as fuel for the feud. A move toward “normal archaeology” (as Nadia Abu El-Haj would call it) would not only benefit the archaeological record but also the intellectual legitimacy of both powers as long as they work toward a nominally nonpartisan goal.

Works Cited
1. Abu El-Haj, Nadia. “Translating Truths: Nationalism, the Practice of Archaeology and the Remaking of Past and Present in Contemporary Jerusalem,” American Ethnologist 25 (2008).
2. Glock, Albert. “Archaeology as Cultural Survival: the Future of the Palestinian Past”, Journal of Palestine Studies 23 (1994).
3. Lange, Karen. "The Stolen Past – West Bank Looting," National Geographic, December 2008, < http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2008/12/palestine-antiquities/lange-text> (08 December 2008).

---

I'll try to remain as mum as possible on this very, very controversial issue; however, I must state my belief that any group that uses archaeology or history as political tools is extremely despicable.