06 Scham (to/d)

22/8/03

1:10 pm

Page 399

Journal of Social Archaeology

ARTICLE

Copyright 2003 SAGE Publications (www.sagepublications.com)

Vol 3(3): 399416 [1469-6053(200310)3:3;399416;038212]

Heritage and reconciliation

SANDRA ARNOLD SCHAM
American Schools of Oriental Research

ADEL YAHYA
Palestinian Association for Cultural Exchange
ABSTRACT
Applied cross-cultural archaeology must be recognized as an essential step in the development of a reflexive, multi-vocal interpretation
of the past. Projects like Ian Hodders excavations at Catalhoyuk that
actually address these issues, however, are still considered highly
innovative, which is a fair indication as to how common they are. Instituting a dialogue about the past between archaeologists from two
nations at war with each other would appear to be the ultimate experiment in multi-vocal archaeological practice. Reconciliation of our
pasts inevitably becomes a further objective, but this requires a leap
of faith and imagination premised on some degree of belief in the
possible good faith of the other side a quality rarely felt in the
middle of a conflict. The common wisdom on how Israelis and Palestinians can deal with their intertwined and largely violent histories
suggests that only through adopting a common narrative can understanding be achieved. The project that stimulated the following
article, however, is based upon a different premise that, to move
toward a reflexive reconciliation, it is necessary to acknowledge the
imperfections of our own narratives without fully rejecting them.

399

06 Scham (to/d)

400

22/8/03

1:10 pm

Page 400

Journal of Social Archaeology 3(3)

KEYWORDS
dialogue historical reconciliation
reflexivity war zone archaeology

Israeli-Palestinian conflict

INTRODUCTION
Almost by definition, every conflict is based on the historical experience of
the antagonists. Ancient claims that support exclusive rights to cultural, and
other, property from time immemorial figure greatly in violent clashes
around the globe. The more ancient such claims are, the more likely the
claimants on both sides will be to maintain a belligerent ignorance of the
narrative of the other side. It is those struggles that contain a particularly
potent mix of historical/religious nodes of contention, however, that are
most likely to implicate archaeology. Widely recognized as furnishing the
symbolic framework for the construction of confrontational national identities (Abu El-Haj, 1998, 2002) archaeology would appear to be a poor
choice of disciplines for an experiment in cultural reconciliation. Many
archaeological practitioners, even while implicitly recognizing that much of
their work has been used to create a past that supports a collective view of
how we have come to be where we are (Trigger, 1984, 1995), nonetheless
feel a profound discomfort with the notion that they advance a view of the
past that might have the potential for taking us elsewhere.
We have made greater progress professionally in rectifying our contributions to the partisan rhetoric that has disenfranchised certain groups
from 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 Repatriation
Act (Vizenor, 1986), the scathing critiques of colonialist influence on
interpretations of the past in developing countries (Castaneda, 1996), the
exposure of the unquestioning nationalist bias of much archaeological
research (Arnold, 1990; Brown, 1994, 1998; Meskell, 1998; Scham, 1998)
and the struggle of minorities to be included in conceptions of national
history (Buck, 1994; Paynter and McGuire, 1991) are clear signs that a new
approach is developing to the interpretation and (re)presentation of the
past (Bond and Gilliam, 1994).
In spite of this progress, postmodern uncertainty coupled with a strong
belief in the imminence of cultural globalization generally will keep archaeologists from the fray (Hamilakis, 1999). As scholars of the past, many of
us would be the first to acknowledge that we are not the most astute judges
of the present political scene (Scham, 1998), and the specters of Nazi and
Soviet style archaeologies are enough to justify a seeming neutrality at

06 Scham (to/d)

22/8/03

1:10 pm

Page 401

Scham & Yahya

Heritage and reconciliation

least in practice, if not in theory. Also, the process by which archaeology

becomes a tool in constructing contentious pasts involves so many factors
over which archaeologists have little or no control. The translation of
material representations of the past into emblems or pretexts for warfare
can seem so organically part of a societys historical view of itself as to
confound our best efforts of interpretation. We cannot remove these causes
of conflict or even explain them into benignity. Few who are caught up in
battles over the sites would care to hear about how we understand the
archaeology of Jerusalem or Ayodhya or any other violently disputed
cultural property (Hammami and Tamari, 2001; Scham, 2001a). There are
means by which we as archaeologists can facilitate mutual understanding
of the past consonant with our professional responsibilities, as we see them,
as long as we recognize that bringing together sometimes oppositional pasts
will not inevitably lead to a shared version. Even if such an achievement
were possible, it would hardly be desirable. It is the interaction of our differences that gives vitality to our dialogue. This vitality may consistently hover
on the verge of confrontation, but it also presents the kind of challenge we
seldom encounter in our work.
This article documents the beginnings of a dialogue that led to the
development of a project to critically examine the common heritage of
Israelis and Palestinians in Palestine, as presented in educational curricula
and public information. The project is sponsored by the US Department of
State with funds authorized under the Wye River Accords (another peace
negotiation milestone in the IsraeliPalestinian conflict that has disintegrated) and involves Israelis from the University of Haifa and Palestinians
from the Palestinian Association for Cultural Exchange (PACE). In
examining our respective histories as presented to the public and as they
are known more intimately from our own cultural perspectives. The project
is an experiment that is based upon a premise forcefully summed up by
Edward Said: [T]here can be no possible reconciliation, no possible
solution unless these two communities confront the experience of each in
the light of the other (Said, 1999: 3).

RECONCILING TO OUR OWN PASTS

Reflexivity, a fundamental concept of postmodern social science research
methodology (Steier, 1991), has become such an integral part of theoretical
archaeological interpretation (Hodder, 1992, 1998, 1999, 2000) as to almost
constitute an end in itself. Even if it were not standard practice, a certain
amount of reflexivity would be essential to our project in order for us to
even conceive of it. As we progressed, we found that the incontrovertible
fact that the ensemble of relations (Gramsci, 1971: 352) between Israelis

401

06 Scham (to/d)

402

22/8/03

1:10 pm

Page 402

Journal of Social Archaeology 3(3)

and Palestinians had developed into an all-out war would impose a selfreflective stance even were we initially unreceptive to it. Nevertheless, as
somewhat self-styled representatives of the Israeli and Palestinian communities, we came together from many different professional backgrounds and
few of us were schooled enough in social science methodology to devise a
plan to move beyond this rather basic level of reflexivity.
Eventually, in order to continue with the project under wartime
conditions, we came to implicitly accept the premise that in order to
communicate our efforts to our respective communities we needed to
achieve some degree of understanding of the other side without giving up
our own history and sense of ourselves. This is clearly not the kind of reflexivity envisioned by critics of the hegemonic Western meta-narrative
(Bhabha, 1990; Castaneda, 1996) which would suggest that the dominant
side in this discourse (the Israeli) should willingly disengage from its recognized past. The implicit assumption upon which this project was built,
however, is that it is necessary, appropriate and legitimate for both sides to
nurture and maintain their own narratives. Israeli and Palestinian history
is so intertwined and so built upon certain perceptions of the other, that it
is incumbent upon the two sides to make the effort to understand the narrative of the one in the context of the other.
While critically acknowledging the imperfections in each of our
premises, we must also confront the fact that, by doing so we are assuming
a role of marginal observers in our own communities. Perhaps it is this
marginality, or our personal relationship, that enabled us to engage in a
fairly consensual exploration of our different pasts. These discussions are
not entirely free of anguish, however harmonious our accord on certain
issues, but we had fewer deep differences on this topic than might be
expected. The most difficult part of the process is the insecurity that is
always inherent in placing oneself in the position of understanding alterity
(Giddens, 1991) especially in a wartime situation. While we may crave
certainty in our understanding we are, nonetheless, aware that we have
partially rejected the certainty of our distinct cultural institutions simply be
working together.
As joint authors to this article, the two of us had originally intended to
present our different views of the Israeli and Palestinian pasts. Not surprisingly, considering the philosophical orientation of individuals who would
engage in this kind of dialogue in the first place, there are only a few points
upon which we disagree. Our communities, however, are much more
heavily invested in the ultimate truth of their stories. As scholars we cannot
truly represent the emotional involvement that people have with these
narratives but we are familiar enough with them, through our education
and work in the region.
Those of us who are Israeli Jews, have been subjected to generations of
Jewish diaspora tradition, which emphasizes that continuity of language

06 Scham (to/d)

22/8/03

1:10 pm

Page 403

Scham & Yahya

Heritage and reconciliation

and the putative historical support of one of the best-known books in the
world have provided us with a long term chronicle of our relationship to
the land (Abu El-Haj, 2002; Benvenisti, 2000; Glock, 1990; Shapira, 1996).
Those of us who are Palestinians intuitively know that our views of the past
are a form of resistance to this Israeli narrative, by means of formulating a
national Palestinian narrative in the same image (Yahya, 1998).
Most Palestinian scholars of the past write for the Palestinians and that
is why many of their books may seem more like propaganda than straightforward narratives, based on evidence and the citation of various academic
sources (Yahya, 1998). Israeli historians have a great advantage over Palestinian historians because they have their own archives. Nevertheless, if
recorded history is, as has often been said, the property of the conquerors,
oral history often becomes the competing tactic of the conquered. For
Palestinians, oral history has become instrumental in formulating the Palestinian narrative even of the very distant past (Nashef, 2000; Nur El-Din,
2000; Ziadeh, 1995; Ziadeh-Seely, 1999). The rationale for using oral data
as historical evidence is the fact that Palestinians have not been able to do
otherwise. Also, in terms of both language and position, Palestinians are
far better placed than Israelis to record the observations of other Palestinians which, as a few Israeli scholars (Pappe, 1994; Rogan and Shlaim,
2001) have also noted, are the vital elements lacking in the nations chronicles. In addition, there is now a new class of Palestinian academics who
graduated from western academic institutions (mostly American, but also
German and even Israeli), who are working in Israel or in the Palestinian
territories (Scham, 2001b; Yahya, 1998, 1999a). These are the people who
have initiated the process of countering the Israeli written narrative by
formulating the new Palestinian narrative (Hassasian, 2001; Khalidi, 1997).
The official versions of Israeli and Palestinian histories, that we have
been subjected to, differ as to how the stories should be told in rather unexpected ways. While few texts for schools and universities in Israel reference
the Palestinian past, it is difficult to find one Palestinian history book that
fails to reference the Israeli past, usually characterizing it as an insidious
Zionist myth (Khalidi, 1997; Rogan and Shlaim, 2001; Segev, 1999; Sternhell, 1999; Wasserstein, 2001). In each case, the texts reflect the past each
side ultimately desires on the one hand, a past without Palestinians (like
the land without a people) and on the other hand, a past that demonstrates, once and for all, the falsehood of the premise upon which the Israeli
State was established.
The archaeological sites in the region have become the field on which
these desired pasts battle for hegemony. Most archaeologists in the region
see themselves as confronting a much more complicated situation of many
contending and perhaps equally valid, stories of the past (Finkelstein and
Silberman, 2001). As a discipline that bridges the sciences and the humanities (Hodder, 1999), archaeology must also provide a bridge between the
abstract (interpretation) and the concrete (material culture). Historians

403

06 Scham (to/d)

404

22/8/03

1:10 pm

Page 404

Journal of Social Archaeology 3(3)

have not been forced to reckon with the tangible evidence of their views
beyond the biased archives upon which they base their findings. Archaeologists, on the other hand, have learned to adjust to the idea that, for most
people, the past is a theme park and they want the themes to be familiar
ones (Scham, 2002). The pressure to deliver an archaeologically demonstrable Israeli or Palestinian past is, in both cases, considerable.
For the average Israeli seeking evidence of the Jewish distant past in
Jerusalem is, for example, a frustrating process. Virtually ninety percent of
the old buildings in the city are Arab built and its chief tourist attractions
are the Church of the Holy Sepulcher and the Via Dolorosa. Israels panacea
for this is the ubiquitous ancient diorama, where models and simulations of
Ancient Israelite buildings appear in the most unlikely places. A new Israeli
museum, opened during the current Intifada, shows a virtual Jewish Temple
rising above the actual ruins of an Islamic palace (Scham, 2001: 32). The
Jerusalem Time Elevator, an exhibit in the citys international press
building, seems purposefully designed to frighten small children into an
appreciation 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 archaeological shell games were the dangers of conjuring those raw emotions we
have lately seen played out on television screens and in newspapers. Now
they are bewildered that the agreement they thought had been reached with
Palestinian politicians the agreement that, in the words of one Palestinian 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 had
actually happened, (as quoted in Benvenisti, 2000: 46) did not firmly
place the region on the road to a permanent resolution of its differences.
The shifting relationship between the politics of remembering and the
politics of forgetting as Appadurai (2001: 37) has characterized it is at work
here, and all of these ploys used by Israelis and Palestinians to present the
past have been highly successful among their target audiences. Jews visiting
the land of Israel may skip the Dome of the Rock or the Christian sites but
it is highly unlikely that they would fail to visit the model of Herods Temple
on the grounds of the Holyland Hotel. Palestinians visiting Israel, in
addition to pay homage to the holy sites, intentionally confront themselves
at every turn with the reoccupation, and sometimes destruction, of their
historical places.

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

06 Scham (to/d)

22/8/03

1:10 pm

Page 405

Scham & Yahya

Heritage and reconciliation

such reflexivity will be a painful process indeed. Questioning our assumptions, core beliefs and absorbed truths is one thing. Excavating the foundations of our identities and the premises for which our friends and
relatives are daily risking their lives is quite another. So much so that one
wonders whether the early theorists of the reflexive method (Bourdieu,
1990; Gouldner, 1970; Habermas, 1981) could have fully anticipated this
use of the concept. The ever-present labels of traitor or collaborator in
Middle East politics are far more threatening than the mere scholarly disapprobation to which Western radical theorists may be exposed. Israeli
archaeologists and historians who question or reject the paradigms of the
past are vulnerable to accusations of providing aid and comfort to the
enemy. Palestinians who do not fully reject the Israeli narrative are admonished that they may be contributing to facts on the ground, supporting the
Israeli appropriation of land (Scham, in press), or they are accused of
cultural normalization or tatbiyah which, in Palestinian parlance, has a
highly 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 to
protecting them from tanks and missiles, we have found many frustrations
in implementing a project like ours. Dialogue is the all-important next step
beyond reflexivity. In seeking a true dialogical approach we are attempting
to find a method whereby we might analyze our cultural identities through
their interactions and our narratives of the past using their interface
(Bakhtin, 1984: 2923). In attempting to negotiate the cognitive borders
between Israeli and Palestinian views of the past we are, constantly it seems,
faced with difficult border crossings of the physical kind. Although we are
limited in our abilities to meet or even talk by phone because of the political
situation, we are somewhat skeptical about the utility of purely written
communications. The general means of scholarly expression, the written
monologue (even the reflexive monologue), is directed toward the self and
the expression of the self rather than another consciousness. In fact, even in
our most provocative written pronouncements, we generally do not expect
to 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 personal
communication as much as it does for telephone communication, for which
modern 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 government and combines both elements of individual privacy and communal
activities. When we are using it, we are alone with it yet the Internet also
offers a means of calling up and collectivizing the memories of our interactions surely one of its most useful advantages for our project.
Because of our various joint ventures, we have been regular e-mail correspondents since before the Al-Aqsa Intifada began in the fall of 2000. We

405

06 Scham (to/d)

22/8/03

1:10 pm

Page 406

Journal of Social Archaeology 3(3)

406

continued our correspondence through the days and months of closures,

assassinations, sieges, curfews, attacks and bombing that followed. We have
elected to reproduce an edited version of our dialogue rather than a jointly
authored analysis of it because, as we look back on this, we also see our
exchanges as fairly accurate reflection of the ways in which we were both
experiencing the war. Adels contributions to the theoretical discussion,
written from a Ramallah under siege and subjected to increasing destruction, often seem to be filled with despair but also, surprisingly pragmatic
and hopeful; while Sandras, written from a Jerusalem where suicide
bombings were becoming an almost daily occurrence, sometimes express
the prevailing sense of depression and ennui there.

DIALOGUE
We became engaged in a theoretical discussion of the different ways Israelis
and Palestinians use the past, beginning with Sandras initial query on
developing a project in September of 2000. Adels response to the proposal
was as follows:
Adel Yahya: I am very interested in such a project. In my opinion, nowhere
in the world has archaeology been manipulated as an ideological tool
as much as here in the Middle East. Archaeology in the Holy Land
was not only used to justify Israels claims, but to falsify and deny our
claims and narratives. We see this conflict as not fought by means of
machine guns and fighter jets alone, but also through books and in
school curriculums and on computer screens. I very much appreciate
your efforts and good intentions. We will always be keen on working
and 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 role
in the life of the Palestinians than that of the Israelis, if not more. I
have been interviewing men and women about this subject lately and
can assure you that this is a very emotional matter to the people and
ignoring or denying it will only make things worse.
SS:

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

06 Scham (to/d)

22/8/03

1:10 pm

Page 407

Scham & Yahya

Heritage and reconciliation

implications since Im not a Muslim nor am I particularly devoted to

the idea of the Temple Mount but I still think that knowing what
the site means in the past as well as the present would tell us a great
deal.
Recently while doing research on the architecture of the Dome of
the Rock I read several texts which talked about the building and
particularly the Inscriptions being a memorial to monotheistic Abrahamic faiths and it seemed rather nice to me to think of this beautiful building as representing the whole history of the religious
traditions associated with the site [Authors note: Grabar, 1978]. It
reminded me of your tours in which you discussed the strong element
of cultural continuity in Palestinian culture from ancient times
forward. Unfortunately, however, it occurs to me that if this view
were more popular, religious Israelis would only use it as an excuse
to take it over.
The first thing that occurred to me when this crisis began was that
the past figured largely in everything. A lot of the putative Biblical
sites are in Palestinian areas. What is happening now to these sites?
Obviously the best way to really talk about these things is face-toface 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 space
to act on many subjects including our work itself. It is such a difficult
time for all of us in this part of the world. I agree a face-to-face
meeting is preferable but it seems impossible now. We will have to
continue our discussion by e-mail. How do you want to do this? Is
the 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 Gaza
is disastrous. When Israel handed six major cities in the West Bank
and most of the Gaza Strip, over to the Palestinian authority in 1996,
as part of the Oslo process, it refused to hand over most archaeological sites, although many of them lie within populated Palestinian
areas. The Israeli authorities insisted on having full control over
those sites on the pretext that they are holy to the Jews and the Palestinian authority cannot be trusted to look after them. Such sites as
Herodion, Sebastia, Tel Al Nasba, Gebion, Beit El, just to name a
few, remained in Israeli hands. But the Israeli military authorities,
who are in full control of these sites, have unsurprisingly done
nothing to upgrade or protect them, while at the same time prevented
Palestinians from doing that either.

SS:

I think that both the theoretical and the practical are important in
this discussion. I am interested in various aspects of Palestinian
archaeology and history, struggles for cultural identity, a right to a

407

06 Scham (to/d)

22/8/03

1:10 pm

Page 408

Journal of Social Archaeology 3(3)

408

remembered presence as Edward Said calls it and the aspects of

cultural continuity from ancient times forward that Ive heard you
speak about. The Al-Aqsa Intifada is partly, it occurs to me, about
all of these things. Do you think that anything positive for archaeology can come from all of this?
AY:

Unfortunately, I think that this long conflict is a huge set back for
archaeology. It has rapidly eroded both of our economies and not
only have archaeological activities ceased here but previously excavated sites have deteriorated. Our colleague, Dr Ann Killebrew from
Haifa University, told me that Israel cant pay for the maintenance
and upkeep of (their own) historical sites inside Israel let alone do
anything about sites in the occupied territories: West Bank and Gaza.
The effects of this siege have been devastating on us. We have
shortages in all commodities. Except for a very small advantaged
group of corrupt officials, we are all now feeling the consequences of
the closure. Unemployment rates are sky rocketing, the official
figures estimate them at around 60 per cent, while the truth is
probably higher than 90 per cent if we consider the many local businesses and organizations who have kept their employees even though
they lost their work. The rate of unemployment amongst Palestinians, especially in rural areas, has encouraged them to loot and
vandalize unprotected sites in order to peddle finds on the poorly
regulated Israeli antiquities market. In addition, once flourishing
tourist industries such as ceramics, olive-wood carving, embroidery
and traditional glass are on the verges of collapse. This is the tragedy
of our situation that very few people are able to comprehend. The
war has shattered lives, ruined our economy and almost destroyed
our cultural heritage.

SS: I recently saw [Shimon] Peres on TV and for a period of time he was
muttering the right things or at least things I didnt violently
disagree with but at one point in the questioning he became exasperated and talked about Palestinian history as being recent and to
some 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 hope
for any other politicians to acknowledge the presence of the Palestinian past. To me the Haram al-Sharif is of great historical and
archaeological interest. To a Muslim, it is these things and much
more. To a fanatic Jew, it is in the way of the third temple. To many
Israelis, it is simply irrelevant.
I think it would be good if we could make a very strong statement
about the importance of getting people to understand the different
meanings of the past. Israelis will often say that Palestinians have no
understanding of the Jewish attachment to the Temple Mount and

06 Scham (to/d)

22/8/03

1:10 pm

Page 409

Scham & Yahya

Heritage and reconciliation

they even speculate that any work done by the Waqf [the Muslim
religious trust] there is to wipe out the Jewish presence. However,
it seems to me that if these people want someone to respect the place
for what is not in evidence, that is, the Temple, Israelis need to be
more honest about acknowledging what is in evidence there that is,
stop referring to the area as the Temple Mount exclusively and stop
presenting it on maps and in tourist literature overlaid by those
fantasy transparencies of the temple.
AY: Israeli Jews have always based their claim to the Holy Land on
ancient biblical accounts even without any real archaeological
evidence. Palestinian Arabs have always cited more recent history,
but now are beginning to use ancient historical events to justify
our/their claim to the land. The question is, has this done archaeology of the Holy Land any good in the past? Is it doing it any good
now and in the future? I think the answer is a straight no. Jews also
talk about their suffering in the Holocaust to justify their claims.
Palestinians feel it is not their problem. The Holocaust is not their
fault. Its a European phenomenon and they had nothing to do
with it.
SS:

As someone who has led tours to Israel for Palestinians you must
have been confronted on a number of occasions by Holocaust memorials 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 they
felt that the museum is built on our Palestinian land and why should
a museum about the Holocaust be built on occupied Palestinian
land? That was the initial response. Those who thought it was a good
experience said, We have to learn from these people how to express
our own disaster, our own memory. That was the only rationale they
found for themselves to see anything about the Holocaust. Otherwise, they saw the Jews as having illegally built a museum on our
occupied land and then turning around and trying to convince us that
their Holocaust justifies the suffering we have been subjected to from
1948 to the present. It is almost impossible to bring up this topic to
Palestinians and even more so to other Arabs outside of Palestine.
Palestinian intellectuals, however, can understand listening to something about the Holocaust because they feel victimized and therefore, they understand the language of victims.

SS:

Its ironic that Israeli and Palestinian memories of the Past are based
on a history of disastrous contacts with European cultures in the
Holocaust and the Crusades. All of this grandstanding has been a
major problem for the people who work in this region but it seems

409

06 Scham (to/d)

22/8/03

1:10 pm

Page 410

Journal of Social Archaeology 3(3)

410

that Palestinians in recent years have concentrated on developing

their own views of the past focusing less on Al Naqba, than on
establishing their sense of rootedness in the land and Palestinian
archaeologists consistently argue that many sites in the region display
a remarkable cultural continuity from the Bronze Ages into the
modern period. Towns often have names that reflect those listed in
ancient records and the traditional agro-pastoralist village subsistence strategies seen in more modern times had very ancient origins
in Palestine [Authors note: Nashef, 2000]. Do you think that these
are compelling arguments even in the face of Jewish assertions that
historical, religious and linguistic continuity supports their claims to
the land? Do you think that your training as an archaeologist has
been helpful in looking at the future of modern Palestine?
AY:

My training in archaeology helped me to realize the importance of

Palestine to world civilization. Palestine formed the stage for important historical and Biblical events of the Old and New Testaments. In
an area of no more than 6500 square kilometers, the Palestinian
Territories encompass some of the most important sites in world
heritage. This is the land of Jerusalem, Jericho and Hebron, among
the earliest known permanent human settlements. I think that the
Palestinian people are the official guardians of this heritage, with the
responsibility to preserve it for all nationalities.
As an emerging state, however, Palestine is not in a good position
to do this. We have to develop a strategy which could satisfy the
demands of conservation, research, public access, tourism and
perhaps most crucially, religious and political sensitivities. I think
that we have a role to play in providing a framework to maximize the
enjoyment of the regions heritage, both for the Palestinian people
and for visitors from abroad. This includes the study of history and
archaeology of Palestine and encouraging the dissemination of knowledge through access to sites and provision of educational material.

EPILOGUE
Because of the difficulties in achieving any meetings between our two
groups, our project has proceeded through separate actions punctuated by
face-to-face discussions carefully arranged in foreign countries. Our first
session was at Catalhoyuk in Turkey, a venue that could not have been more
appropriate given Hodders innovative work on applied reflexive archaeology there (Hodder, 2000). Turkey has also been the neutral ground of
choice for other meetings between Israelis and Palestinians since the new
Intifada began.

06 Scham (to/d)

22/8/03

1:10 pm

Page 411

Scham & Yahya

Heritage and reconciliation

Over the course of the next four days, in August of 2002, we had a series
of friendly discussions. As so often happens at these kinds of conferences
our most important meetings took place outside of the joint meeting rooms.
Two young mothers in the group, Israeli and Palestinian, talked about how
much they worried about their infant daughters during the current political
situation. One of the PACE project coordinators poignantly told us how
the smell of manure in Cuchikoy (the local Turkish village) reminded him
of growing up in a Bedouin camp in the Judean Desert. He was enthusiastically supported in this view by an Israeli in our group, who fervently
missed the northern agricultural kibbutz where he was born. One of the
Palestinians casually sat down with a group of Polish archaeologists
working at the site and began conversing in Czech, a language that was
close enough to theirs to permit understanding, which he had learned as a
student in what was then Czechoslovakia.
Jerusalem was, not surprisingly, the catalyst for some brief discord. We
did 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 Palestinian women there tried to explain. She wrote: Though we tried to avoid the
political discussion, some hot topics had been raised. You know nationalism comes out everywhere. I noticed that every national team working
there was gathering and sitting to eat at the same table and even they have
their own methodology on work. So what about Palestinians who are united
being occupied, collectively punished, struggling to achieve their rights of
land and independence.
We spent our last evening in Turkey together in a caf. All of us gathered
at one table. We represented a rather strange tableau to the others in the
caf, native Turks who seldom see tourists. As we left, one of them asked
us, in halting English, where we were all from. An Israeli Army reservist
in the Haifa group, answered Palestine. The next day, at the end of our
meeting, one of the Palestinians, someone who had lost a close relative to
an Israeli bullet early in the Intifada, somewhat diffidently suggested that
we sing a song he had learned at a conference in Israel. The Israeli Jews
among us knew the song in Hebrew (an old Hasidic tune) and Odeh taught
it to his colleagues in Arabic. The words, roughly translated, are: All the
world 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 State
University (also representing the University of Haifa), Rachel Hachlili of the
University of Haifa, Odeh Muhamad Issa Baiatneh and Jamal Moussa Jaafra of
PACE for their vital contributions to the creation of this article and to the success
of the project and to Ian Hodder, whose generous hospitality at Catalhoyuk made
our first large group meeting so memorable.

411

06 Scham (to/d)

22/8/03

1:10 pm

Page 412

Journal of Social Archaeology 3(3)

412

References
Abu El-Haj, N. (1998) Translating Truths: Nationalism, the Practice of Archaeology
and the Remaking of Contemporary Jerusalem, American Ethnologist 25: 16688.
Abu El-Haj, N. (2002) Facts on the Ground: Archaeological Practice and Territorial
Self-fashioning in Israeli Society. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Appadurai, A. (2001) The Globalization of Archaeology and Heritage, Journal of
Social Archaeology 1(1): 3549.
Arnold, B. (1990) The Past as Propaganda: Totalitarian Archaeology in Nazi
Germany, 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 written
in 1926), in P. Morris (ed.) The Bakhtin Reader, pp. 16174. London: Arnold.
Benvenisti, M. (2000) Sacred Landscape: The Buried History of the Holy Land Since
1948. (trans.) Maxime Kaufman-Lacusta and Benvenisti, Meron. Berkeley, CA:
University of California Press.
Bhabha, H. (1990) DissemiNation: Time, Narrative and the Margins of the Modern
Nation, 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 of
Modern Macedonia, Antiquity 68: 78496.
Brown, K. (1998) Contests of Heritage and the Politics of Preservation in the
Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, in L. Meskell (ed.) Archaeology
Under Fire: Nationalism, Politics and Heritage in the Eastern Mediterranean and
Middle East, pp. 6886. London: Routledge.
Buck, P. (1994) Dependent Development in the United States South, in G. Bond
and 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 University
Press.
Derrida, J. (1976) Of Grammatology. Baltimore, MD: John Hopkins University
Press.
Finkelstein, I. and N. Silberman (2001) The Bible Unearthed: Archaeologys New
Vision of Ancient Israel and the Origin of its Sacred Texts. New York: The Free
Press.
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 413

Scham & Yahya

Heritage and reconciliation

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 of
Black Americans, Historical Archaeology 31(3): 3650
Franklin, M. (1998) Comments on Perspectives on the Evolution of African
American Culture: The Historical Archaeology of the Tenant Community at the
Levi Jordan Plantation , paper presented at the Society of Historical Archaeology 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 Meaning
in 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 in
Memory of Albert E. Glock, pp. 32442. Atlanta: Scholars Press.
Glock, A. (1990) Archaeology as Cultural Survival: The Future of the Palestinian
Past. Republished in T. Kapitan (ed.) History and Culture in Palestine and the
Near East: Essays in Memory of Albert E. Glock, pp. 34365. Atlanta: Scholars
Press.
Gouldner, A.W. (1970) The Coming Crisis of Western Sociology. New York: Basic
Books.
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 Intellectual Activity in Postmodernity, Journal of Mediterranean Archaeology 12(1):
6079.
Hammami, R. and S. Tamari (2001) The Battle for Jerusalem, Jerusalem Quarterly
File 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 and
Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Hodder, I. (ed.) (2000) Towards a Reflexive Method in Archaeology: The Example
of Catalhoyuk, McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research/British Institute of Archaeology at Ankara. Monograph No. 28.
Khalidi, R. (1997) Palestinian Identity: The Construction of Modern National
Consciousness. New York, NY: Columbia University Press.
Leone, M. (1992) A Multicultural African-American Historical Archaeology:

413

06 Scham (to/d)

414

22/8/03

1:10 pm

Page 414

Journal of Social Archaeology 3(3)

How to Place Archaeology in the Community in a State Capital, paper
presented 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 Archaeology 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 Interpretation
of the Archaeology of the Levi Jordan Plantation, Historical Archaeology 31(3):
1535.
McDavid, C. (1999) Contemporary Conversations About the Archaeology of
Slavery and Tenancy: Collaboration, Descendants and Computers, Paper
presented at the 4th World Archaeological Congress, University of Cape Town,
South Africa.
Meskell, L. (1998) Introduction: Archaeology Matters, in L. Meskell (ed.) Archaeology Under Fire: Nationalism, Politics and Heritage in the Eastern Mediterranean
and 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 Transmission and Assimilation of Culture in the Near East, Jerusalem, February.
Orser, C. (1992) Beneath the Material Surface of Things: Commodities, Artifacts
and 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 B
Tauris & Co Ltd.
Paynter, R. and R. McGuire (1991) The Archaeology of Inequality: Material
Culture, Domination and Resistance, in R. McGuire and R. Paynter (eds) The
Archaeology of Inequality, pp. 127. Oxford: Blackwell Science.
Pollner, M. (1991) Left of Ethnomethodology: The Rise and Decline of Radical
Reflexivity, American Sociological Review 56(June): 37080.
Rogan, E.L. and A. Shlaim (eds) (2001) The War for Palestine: Rewriting the History
of 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 Holiest
Shrine?, Archaeology 54(6): 627, 724.
Scham, S. (2001b) The Archaeology of the Disenfranchised, Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 8(2): 183213.
Scham, S. (2002) The Days of the Judges: When Men and Women Were Animals
and Trees Were Kings, Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 97: 3764.

06 Scham (to/d)

22/8/03

1:10 pm

Page 415

Scham & Yahya

Heritage and reconciliation

Scham, S. (in press) From the River Unto the Land of the Philistines: The Memory
of 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 Tribal
Bones, American Indian Quarterly 10(4): 31931.
Wasserstein, B. (2001) Divided Jerusalem: The Struggle for the Holy City. New
Haven: 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 presented
at 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 Ghosh
Press.
Ziadeh, G. (1995) Ethno-history and Reverse Chronology at Tiinnik, a Palestinian Village, Antiquity 69(266): 9991014.
Ziadeh-Seely, G. (1999) Abandonment and Site Formation Processes: An Ethnographic and Archaeological Study, in T. Kapitan (ed.) Archaeology, History and
Culture in Palestine and the Near East: Essays in Memory of Albert E. Glock,
pp. 12750. Atlanta: Scholars Press.

415

06 Scham (to/d)

416

22/8/03

1:10 pm

Page 416

Journal of Social Archaeology 3(3)

SANDRA ARNOLD SCHAM is an archaeologist and anthropologist

who has lived and worked in the Middle East for over six years. She is the
editor of the journal Near Eastern Archaeology,published by the American
Schools of Oriental Research. She is also a contributing editor to Archaeology magazine and serves as a co-coordinator of the Wye River People
to People Project on Recognizing and Preserving the Common Heritage
of Israel and the Palestinian National Authority and of the Negev Bedouin
Identity Project. She obtained her doctorate at the Catholic University of
America in Washington, DC and formerly held the positions of Associate
Curator at the Pontifical Biblical Institute Museum and Lecturer at
Jerusalem University College, both in Jerusalem, Israel.
ADEL YAHYA is the Founder and Director of The Palestinian Association for Cultural Exchange (PACE) a Palestinian non-governmental,
non-profit organization. Its main goals are to promote awareness of
Palestinian cultural heritage through cultural tourism, scientific research
and public education programs. Dr Yahya, who was born in the Jalazone
Refugee Camp near Ramallah, received his PhD in History & Archaeology
from the Free University of Berlin-Germany. He has taught at Birzeit
University and at the Jerusalem Open University in Ramallah.