“Community Archaeology 1984: At the Interface between Practice and Theory,”
Backdirt December 2017, 34–38.
See full text
One of the most important topics for the Urkesh team, also under a theoretical perspective, is indeed that of the role played by archaeologists working in a land affected by war and political instability (as Syria). The site of Tell Mozan = Urkesh offers the chance to reflect on themes such as the moral commitment of an archaeologists dealing with local communities in trouble.
Archaeologists have to take in mind that the main purpose of any scientific archaeological activity is the preservation of the ancient remains, on one hand, and the diffusion of this knowledge to a broader public, on the other, and firstly to the local communities living nearby ancient sites (and, under this perspective, heirs of ancient people).
From 1984 onwards, the American (UCLA – IIMAS) and German (DOG) teams have been excavating the site of ancient Urkesh, modern Tell Mozan. The aim of the directors is indeed the development of a ‘community archaeology‘ or, even better, ‘an archaeology of/for the community’.
Two purposes are stressed: 1) “On the one hand, starting from a very practical set of needs, we came to reflect more and more on the theoretical implications and presuppositions of our work” 2) “On the other hand, and more importantly, our whole effort was put to a severe test by the war in Syria beginning in 2011, and in this test we found an unexpected validation of our basic procedures and goals” (p. 34).
The steps towards the fulfilment of the aforementioned purpose are as follows: 1) “Conservation: the exposed architecture continues to be in perfect condition, thanks to the simple but very effective conservation system we developed at the start of excavations in 1984, entirely based on local resources and know–how” 2) “site presentation: our extensive signage system has been fully reactivated with around 200 signs explaining the site to visitors. In addition, in December 2016 we published an 80–page booklet in English, Arabic, and Kurdish. We get a considerable number of visitors at the site, all from the surrounding region” 3) “research: three of our local assistants continue to work on the data in our archives and on the ceramics stored in the expedition house. Together with the local university, we host seminars where students can work on our material, both at the university and at our site, which is the only excavation site effectively available for such purposes” 4) “economic development: we support local women who produce traditional handicrafts (clothes, dolls, jewelry), which they can sell locally or ship to us” (p. 34).
All the aforementioned steps are then described in detail, starting from the conservation and preservation of the structural remains, moving to the scientific study of the site, the evaluation and the diffusion of knowledge about ancient Urkesh, together with a personal and communal awareness of the local responsibility for conservation, always in collaboration with the archaeologists. Under this respect, war represents a challenge, a ‘sever test’ (p. 35) to verify the network between the local community and the ‘foreign’ (only, geographically speaking) researchers.
‘Legacy’ and ‘education’ are indeed the most important keywords: “There is a special dimension in the relationship to the territory that uniquely affects the people who live in it. Their sense of the environment does not compare to our sense of it, as we are guests for a limited period of time. Theirs is truly a legacy of which we are not heirs. In this regard, then, community archaeology means that community members embrace us and offer us a share of the insight derived from their loyalty to this territory” (p. 36).
In the end, both the archaeologists and the local community are perceived as ‘guardians’, a role which “is not so much a duty as a privilege” (p. 37). Streaming almost directly from the quoted Dialogue of the Pessimism (a Babylonian wisdom text), we can affirm that the main goal of the archaeological mission at Urkesh is to express “a sharp sensitivity for the archaeological dimension of life” (p. 38): a life which reveals always, on past or present time, as a unique and shared human experience.