Advertisement

Archaeologies

, Volume 15, Issue 3, pp 481–495 | Cite as

Wedded to Privilege? Archaeology, Academic Capital, and Critical Public Engagement

  • Raphael GreenbergEmail author
Research

Abstract

Public and collaborative archaeological projects—many of them inspirational—have made headway in different parts of the world. But, as far as I can tell, they do not garner the same level of academic capital, or provide their practitioners with the same rewards, as other kinds of scientific or industrial collaboration. Moreover, in countries such as mine (Israel), where archaeology is imbricated in contestations of identity, historical narrative, and territorial claims, public archaeology projects are carefully co-opted by local or governmental institutions, so that any potentially disruptive impact may be contained, if not completely subverted. In what follows, I describe the current academic and extra-academic landscape and its implications for public engagement, commenting briefly on the possible ways forward, which require, I suggest, a patient commitment to a critical stance and a shift in the locus of archaeological desire—the driving passion of our discipline.

Key Words

Critical archaeology Israel/Palestine Neoliberalism Digwashing 

Résumé

Les projets archéologiques publics et collaboratifs, dont beaucoup sont une source d’inspiration, ont fait de grands progrès dans différentes parties du monde. Il m’apparaît cependant qu’ils ne recueillent pas le même niveau de capital académique ni n’obtiennent les mêmes gratifications en faveur de leurs praticiens comme le font d’autres types de collaborations scientifiques ou industrielles. En outre, dans les pays comme le mien (Israël), où l’archéologie est imbriquée dans des contestations d’identité, un récit historique et des revendications territoriales, les projets archéologiques publics sont systématiquement récupérés par les institutions locales ou gouvernementales afin que tout impact susceptible de causer une perturbation puisse être contenu, sinon totalement neutralisé. Dans l’exposé suivant, je décris le paysage actuel universitaire et extra-universitaire et ses implications pour l’engagement public, en ajoutant quelques brefs commentaires sur les possibles voies à suivre, lesquelles imposent comme je le suggère, de s’investir patiemment en faveur d’un point de vue critique ainsi qu’un déplacement quant au lieu central du désir archéologique, la passion qui sous-tend notre discipline.

Resumen

Los proyectos arqueológicos públicos y de colaboración, muchos de ellos inspiradores, han avanzado en diferentes partes del mundo. Pero, hasta donde me consta, no obtienen el mismo nivel de capital académico ni proporcionan a sus profesionales las mismas recompensas que otros tipos de colaboración científica o industrial. Además, en países como el mío (Israel), donde la arqueología está imbricada en disputas de identidad, narrativa histórica y reclamos territoriales, los proyectos públicos de arqueología son cuidadosamente cooptados por instituciones locales o gubernamentales, para que cualquier impacto potencialmente perjudicial pueda contenerse, a no ser que queda completamente subvertido. A continuación, describo el panorama académico y extra-académico actual y sus implicaciones para la participación pública, comentando brevemente los posibles caminos a seguir, que requieren, sugiero, un compromiso paciente con una postura crítica y un cambio en el enfoque del deseo arqueológico, que es la pasión impulsora de nuestra disciplina

Notes

Acknowledgements

My thanks to Bonnie Clark and Meredith Chesson for their invitation to join the SAA session in which this paper originated, to the session participants for their responses from the floor, and to Audrey Horning and Steve Silliman for their thoughtful comments on an earlier draft of the paper.

References

  1. Atalay, S. (2006a). Guest editor’s remarks: Decolonizing archaeology. American Indian Quarterly,30(3/4), 269–279.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Atalay, S. (2006b). Indigenous archaeology as decolonizing practice. American Indian Quarterly,30(3/4), 280–310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bruchac, M. M. (2014). Decolonization in archaeological theory. In C. Smith (Ed.), Encyclopedia of global archaeology (pp. 2069–2077). New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Cinamon, G. (2008). The archaeological site as constructing local identity: The test-case of the Ir Ganim and Qiryat Menachem communities in Jerusalem. In M. Feige & Z. Shiloni (Eds.), Archaeology and nationalism in Eretz Israel (pp. 187–206). Ben Gurion Institute: Beer Sheva. (Hebrew).Google Scholar
  5. Dakouri-Hild, A. (Ed.) (2017). Special issue: Public archaeologies of the ancient mediterranean. Journal of Eastern Mediterranean Archaeology and Heritage Studies, 5(3/4), 251–443.Google Scholar
  6. Davis, C. (2013). Conserving ‘‘The Ottoman(s)’’ at an Israeli world heritage site. Archaeologies,9(2), 320–343.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Edwards, M. A., & Roy, S. (2017). Academic research in the 21st century: Maintaining scientific integrity in a climate of perverse incentives and hypercompetition. Environmental Engineering Science,34(1), 51–61.  https://doi.org/10.1089/ees.2016.0223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Fenster, T., & Misgav, C. (2015). The protest within protest: Feminism and ethnicities in the 2011 Israeli protest movement. Women’s Studies International Forum,52, 20–29.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wsif.2015.07.003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York: Herder.Google Scholar
  10. Gadot, Y., & De‘adle, T. (2009). Khan el-Ḫillu, Lod, 2008. Israel Exploration Journal,58, 227–232.Google Scholar
  11. Gonzalez-Ruibal, A. (2014). Archaeological revolution(s). Current Swedish Archaeology,22, 41–45.Google Scholar
  12. González-Ruibal, A., Kersting, T., Olivier, L., & The Editorial Collective of Forum Kritische Archäologie. (2018). Archaeology of the contemporary past: An interview with Alfredo González-Ruibal, Thomas Kersting and Laurent Olivier. Forum Kritische Archäologie,7, 47–66.Google Scholar
  13. Greenberg, R. (2012). Critical archaeology in practice. Forum Kritische Archäologie,1, 69–72.Google Scholar
  14. Greenberg, R. (2014). A privatized heritage: How the Israel antiquities authority relinquished Jerusalem’s past. Jerusalem: Emek Shaveh.Google Scholar
  15. Greenberg, R. (2018). The Jerusalem heritage zone: two policy proposals. In R. Bernbeck, A. Badran, & S. Pollock (Eds.), Reclaiming the past for the future: Oral history, craft and archaeology. Adel Yahya in Memoriam (pp. 21–44). Berlin: Ex Oriente.Google Scholar
  16. Greenberg, R., & Cinamon, G. (2006). Stamped and incised jar handles from Rogem Gannim, and their implications for the political economy of Jerusalem, late 8th–early 4th centuries BCE. Tel Aviv,33, 229–243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Greenberg, R., & Cinamon, G. (2011). Excavations at the Rogem Gannim Site (Rujm at-Tarud), 2000–2006. Atiqot,66, 79–106.Google Scholar
  18. Hamilakis, Y. (1999). La trahison des archéologues? Archaeological practice as intellectual activity in postmodernity. Journal of Mediterranean Archaeology,12, 60–79.Google Scholar
  19. Hardy, S. (2017). The archaeological profession and human rights. In G. Moshenska (Ed.), Key concepts in public archaeology (pp. 93–106). London: UCL.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hemo, E., & Linn, R. (2017). Sustainable conservation of archaeological sites with local communities: The case-study of Tel Yoqne‘am, Israel. Journal of Eastern Mediterranean Archaeology and Heritage Studies,5, 411–426.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Khoury, R. (2013). Activities of the Galilee Educational Center in the non-Jewish sector. Dvar Avar [Israel Antiquities Authority Newsletter],18, 44–46. (Hebrew).Google Scholar
  22. Killebrew, A. E., DePietro, D., Pangarkar, R., Peleg, S.-A., Scham, S., & Taylor, E. (2017). Archaeology, shared heritage, and community at Akko, Israel. Journal of Eastern Mediterranean Archaeology and Heritage Studies,5, 365–392.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kristiansen, K. (2014). Towards a new paradigm? The third science revolution and its possible consequences in archaeology. Current Swedish Archaeology,22, 11–34.Google Scholar
  24. La Salle, M., & Hutchings, R. (2018). “What could be more reasonable?” Collaboration in colonial contexts. In A. M. Labrador & N. A. Silberman (Eds.), Oxford handbook of public heritage theory and practice. Oxford: Oxford university Press.  https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780190676315.013.22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Lydon, J., & Rizvi, U. (Eds.). (2010). Handbook of postcolonial archaeology. Walnut Creek: Left Coast Press.Google Scholar
  26. Marom, N. (2013). Activising space: The spatial politics of the 2011 protest movement in Israel. Urban Studies,50(13), 2826–2841.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0042098013477699.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. McGuire, R. H. (2012). Critical archaeology and praxis. Forum Kritische Archäologie,1, 77–89.Google Scholar
  28. Nakamura, C. (2012). Archaeology and the capacity to aspire. Forum Kritische Archäologie,1, 123–133.Google Scholar
  29. Rapaport, M. (2009). Shady dealings in Silwan. Jerusalem: Ir Amim.Google Scholar
  30. Resco, P. A. (Ed.). (2016). Archaeology and neoliberalism. Madrid: JAS Arqeologia.Google Scholar
  31. Schipper, S. (2016). Towards a ‘post-neoliberal’ mode of housing regulation? The Israeli social protest of summer 2011. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research,40, 1137–1154.  https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2427.12318.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Smith, L. (2013). Discussion. In R. F. Bendix, A. Eggert, & A. Peselmann (Eds.), Heritage regimes and the state (2nd ed., pp. 389–398)., Göttingen studies in cultural property 6 Göttingen: Göttingen University.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Stahl, Z. (2017). Appropriating the past: Israel’s archaeological practices in the West Bank. Jerusalem: Yesh Din and Emek Shaveh.Google Scholar
  34. Thomas, S. (2017). Community archaeology. In G. Moshenska (Ed.), Key concepts in public archaeology (pp. 14–30). London: UCL.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Uziel, J., & Szanton, N. (2015). Recent excavations near the Gihon Spring and their reflection on the character of Iron II Jerusalem. Tel Aviv,42, 233–250.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. von Lorenz, C. (2006). Will the universities survive European integration: Higher education policies in the EU and in the Netherlands before and after the Bologna declaration. Sociologia Internationalis,44, 123–151.Google Scholar
  37. Ziman, J. (1996). “Postacademic science”: Constructing knowledge with networks and norms. Science Studies,9, 67–80.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© World Archaeological Congress 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Archaeology and Ancient Near Eastern CulturesTel Aviv UniversityTel AvivIsrael

Personalised recommendations