Archaeologists in Conflict: Empathizing with Which Victims?

14 Pages·2009·0.14 MB·English

Forum
Archaeologists in Conflict: I went to see a girl said to have
been driven insane as a result of an
Empathizing with Which
attack by a large party [ . . . ]. I found
Victims? her living alone with her mother
(who had also been raped a number
Umberto Albarella of times), and in total poverty [ . . . ].
She was unable to walk as a result
Isn’t it true that there have been of her physical injuries. [ . . . ] At last
fearful episodes in human history one had faced the flesh-and-blood
when prudence and discretion reality of the kind of horror that
would have just been euphemisms drove the whole female population
for pusillanimity? When caution of Macedonian villages to throw
was actually cowardice?[ . . . ] Isn’t themselves from cliffs rather than
it true [ . . . ] that there are times in fall in the hands of the advancing
the life of a people or a nation when Turks. A fate worse than death:
the political climate demands that it was in fact just that [Lewis
we[ . . . ] overtly take sides? 2002:130-1].
Arundhati Roy 2001:12
There should be a parallel history
written not by the war survivors, but
This piece is not about the horrors of war,
rather by those who died or were injured
though perhaps it should be. Millions of
in the body or the mind; those whom we
pages have been written about that mon-
have forgotten or emarginated. If there
strous failure of the human mind that war
were, our perception of the progress of
is. But people have short memories, and
human society would be very different.
often little awareness of what happens
As the US former Secretary of Defence,
beyond their back-gardens. They need to
Donald Rumsfeld, once said, during war
be constantly reminded of what complete
“stuff happens.” Indeed. But unlike Rums-
collapse of any form of decency and civi-
feld many people of the world are decent
lised behavior war inevitably brings. This
enough to object to such “stuff.”
is an extract from an episode occurring
At the last Word Archaeological
during the Second World War, the “just”
Congress (WAC) held in Dublin 29 June–
war, the war that “was worth waging,” ac-
4 July 2008 the following resolution, pro-
cording to even some of the most dedi-
posed by Yannis Hamilakis and seconded
cated pacifists among us.
by the writer, was presented at the final
The French colonial troops are on plenary session, and eventually approved
the rampage again. Whenever they by a clear majority of the assembly:
take a town or a village, a wholesale
The sixth World Archaeological
rape of the population takes place.
Congress expresses its strong op-
Recently all females in the villages
position to any unilateral and un-
of [ . . . ] were violated. [ . . . ] Today
provoked, covert or overt military
H eritage Management, Volume 2, Issue 1, Spring 2009, pp. 105–114. 105
Copyright © 2009 Left Coast Press, Inc. All rights reserved.
106 FoRUM
action (including air strikes) against much confusion and controversy. The
Iran by the US government, or by resolution was presented to the WAC
any other government. Such action plenary session in the form reported
will have catastrophic consequences above, but the chairman of the meeting,
for millions of people and will seri- without any previous consultation with
ously endanger the cultural heritage the proposers, decided to split it and put
of Iran and of the Middle East in the two paragraphs separately to the vote
general. Any differences with Iran of the plenary session. Both paragraphs
(as with any other country) should were approved with a clear majority, but
be resolved through peaceful and eventually the WAC executive decided to
diplomatic means. ditch the second one. Whether the whole
The Congress also urges its resolution represents the view of WAC
members, all archaeologists and is therefore a question of perception — is
heritage professionals to resist WAC’s view best represented by its gen-
any attempts by the military and eral assembly or its executive? Whatever
governments to be co-opted in is the case, the resolution contributed to
any planned military operation, place a complex, delicate, and controver-
for example by providing advice sial item at the centre of the archaeologi-
and expertise to the military on cal agenda; an item of great importance,
archaeological and cultural heritage which feeds on the idea that archaeology
matters. Such advice would provide is relevant to contemporary political de-
cultural credibility and respectabili- bate.
ty to the military action. Archaeolo- Forms of collaboration between ar-
gists should continue emphasizing chaeologists and the military have always
instead the detrimental conse- existed and, though they have generally
quences of such actions for the been accompanied by various degrees
people and the heritage of the area, of controversy, none is more delicate
for the past and the present alike. A than the cooperation of archaeologists
universal refusal by archaeologists with the military of a country involved
and others would send the message in a war. This is particularly so when that
that such a plan is hugely unpopular country is responsible for the beginning
amongst cultural professionals as of the hostilities. Notorious is the well
well as the wider public. documented close relationship that some
archaeologists had with the Nazi party
The aim of this piece is to explain the in Germany, even as the German mili-
ethos behind this resolution and discuss tary was invading large parts of Europe
the reasons why the implementation of (Arnold and Hassmann1995). Should we
a close relationship between archaeolo- regard these archaeologists as scientists
gists and the military of a country wag- working in difficult circumstances or
ing war is a matter for concern. Before I Nazi collaborators? There is probably no
delve into these questions a clarification general answer to this question and differ-
regarding the above resolution is, how- ent cases need to be evaluated according
ever, due, as this has already generated to context, circumstances, and individual
106
FoRUM 107
attitudes. But the question needs to be of Baghdad, and in fact continues to rage
raised because, despite much rhetoric to as I write. This meant that the archaeolo-
the contrary, no scientist can be regarded gists had to operate in difficult and dan-
to be above politics or without responsi- gerous conditions and working without
bilities towards the wider society. protection would have certainly been
A much more recent example is rep- uncalled for. It is also important to re-
resented by the work done by archae- member that, apart from any ethical con-
ologists in conjunction with the US-led siderations, the invasion of Iraq was by
2003 invasion of Iraq. To avoid possible many, including the then UN Secretary-
misunderstandings it is worth specifying General, deemed to be illegal according
that this case is historically and politically to international law. This puts the archae-
very different from the one mentioned ologists in an interesting international le-
above. Up to the First Gulf War of 1991 gal limbo, as most of their activities were
many international missions of archaeol- in fact approved if not implemented by
ogists had operated in Iraq, attracted by the UN itself.
the rich ancient heritage of that country, If analyzed without its social and po-
and hardly discouraged by the brutal and litical context there is no reason why the
dictatorial regime under which inevitable work of archaeologists in Iraq should be
control they had to operate. Following regarded as any less than commendable.
the 2003 invasion archaeological work The terrible damage that was done to the
was immediately resumed but mainly in Iraqi heritage by the chaos generated by
the areas of forensic science and heritage the invasion and direct military interven-
conservation. In fact this latter work be- tion from either side certainly required
gan even before the invasion, and con- a rescue plan implemented by profes-
sisted, in those early stages, mainly of the sionals. The forensic work was aimed at
provision of maps for the military. These reconstructing crime scenes as a help in
pointed out the location of important ar- the identification of the culprits, but had
chaeological sites that should be spared also a humanitarian purpose in allowing
by the bombing (e.g., see Stone 2005). a sense of closure to all families who had
Forensic and heritage conservation suffered from loss and persecution dur-
jobs are of course very different and op- ing the years of Saddam’s regime.
erate in entirely different contexts, but in As history teaches us we do not, how-
this case they had in common the need ever, operate without a political context.
to work with the protection and logistic And it is important to emphasize here
supervision of the occupying armies. In that the question which I am raising in
other words like many (but not all) jour- this piece is not whether archaeologists
nalists working in Iraq these archaeolo- should work at all in Iraq, bur rather
gists had become, in the words of one of whether they should collaborate with the
them, “embedded,” which led to some di- invading armies. In fact some archae-
lemmas regarding their level of indepen- ologists advised the US and UK military
dency (Teijgeler 2006a). It must not be without ever setting foot in Iraq.
forgotten that the war in Iraq did not end Rene Teijgeler, a reserve officer of the
with the invasion and eventual conquest Dutch Army and a heritage expert, has
107
108 FoRUM
written that “it is not the primary task of I attended the meeting at the Brit-
cultural heritage management to prevent ish Museum on 29 April with some
or stop war [ . . . ] politicians declare war unease: here was the primary mu-
and soldiers wage war. Nevertheless, what seum in the UK positioning itself at
cultural institutions can do is to prepare the forefront of efforts to assist in
themselves for the event of war” (Teijgel- the protection and conservation of
er 2006b:133). Factually his statement is the cultural heritage in Iraq when
certainly correct, but the problem is that it was the — many believe unlaw-
such “preparation” means to work with ful — actions of the UK Govern-
the governments of the countries that ment that had put the cultural
have generated the problem in the first in- heritage at risk in the first place
stance. To wonder whether this provides [Stone 2008:939].
an element of legitimacy to a belligerent
Stone’s concern is, however, some-
attitude is certainly a justifiable question
what puzzling when we consider that he
to ask. Politicians may well take the de-
was dealing with a cultural institution
cision to declare a war but they need an
that happened to be British but had no
ethos that is conducive to such action
responsibility whatsoever in the planning
gaining support. Ultimately their aim is
of the war. on the contrary he did not
the stability of their positions of power
seem to feel the same “unease” about his
and the final prize is re-election. Though
collaboration with the MoD, an institu-
archaeologists do not have ultimate re-
tion that had been instrumental in mak-
sponsibility for a war, they do have the
ing the case for war. It is just an example
opportunity to distance themselves from
of the inevitable confusion of responsi-
those who are instrumental in generating
bility that occurs when scientists present
it. A just society needs alert intellectuals
themselves merely as professionals or
more than technocrats and the attempt of
experts, rather than as informed citizen
some scientists of “being accepted merely
aware of the wider political implications
as professionals and experts, not as criti-
of their actions.
cal thinkers who question the ‘regimes of
That concern existed regarding the
truth’ within which that expert knowl-
role of archaeologists in the context of
edge is deployed” (Hamilakis 2003:107) is
war is clear from the robust response
concerning.
that the World Archaeological Congress
Peter Stone is a British archaeolo-
produced in the occasion of its quadrien-
gist who advised the Ministry of Defence
nal conference that happened to be held
(MoD) regarding the approach the Brit-
just a few months after the Iraq invasion.
ish Army should take to minimise dam-
This is an extract from a press released is-
age to the cultural heritage of Iraq. In the
sued by the WAC President Claire Smith
context of discussing his involvement
following the fifth World Archaeological
in various plans that were being imple-
Congress in Washington, DC (US):
mented to stop the looting and damage
that followed the earliest phases of the The invasion and occupation have
invasion, he wrote: had tragic consequences for the
globally significant archaeological
108
FoRUM 109
heritage of Iraq. More importantly, the power to implement and finance their
they have resulted in death or in- work. I have the greatest admiration for
jury for thousands, which may well forensic archaeologists and anthropolo-
have a detrimental long-term effect gists, who typically operate in difficult
for the Iraqi people and environ- and emotionally charged circumstances
ment. The Executive Committee of and make their expertise available for
the World Archaeological Con- the reconstruction of criminal events,
gress, meeting on 27 June [2003] which are often of unspeakable brutal-
in Washington DC, noted these ity (“crimes against humanity” as is often
deep concerns as well as significant said). There is, however, a tendency to
concerns relating to requests from perceive them as pure human right de-
the aggressor countries’ military fenders, whose work is above any ethical
forces for archaeologists to provide scrutiny, being as it is ethical by defini-
information and advice concerning tion. Margaret Cox, a forensic archae-
the identification and protection of ologist and anthropologist who has pro-
the cultural heritage in Iraq [cited vided expertise for the excavation of mass
in Hamilakis 2003:109]. graves presumably dated to the years of
Saddam’s regime, has written about
Such strong wording is perhaps the socio-political context of her work:
ironic considering the much more timid “As the world order changes around us,
approach taken by the WAC executive and violations of human rights become
in the occasion of the last congress (see common knowledge we respond” (Cox
above). Perhaps sympathy for the pain of 2003:225). However admirable the work
the innocents faded away as time passed of these scientists is, before procedures
and the courage of the WAC position for sanctification take place it is probably
took some beating following the increas- necessary to scrutinize more closely the
ingly threatening attitude of the estab- circumstances in which it has occurred
lished powers. in Iraq. In a BBC News article Paul Reyn-
If the heritage protection work in Iraq olds, the BBC News online world affairs
obviously required some immediate ac- correspondent, mentions that,
tion, the same level of urgency for the fo-
the UK Foreign Secretary Jack
rensic work is more difficult to justify and
Straw stressed to the Parliament
it is hard not to see it as mainly politically
the evils of the Saddam regime and
motivated. The earlier forensic evidence
the possibilities for the future. He
is retrieved the better, but considering
quoted Professor Margaret Cox, the
the circumstances of the Iraq conflict it
leader of the British forensic team
is hard to see how a few months would
in Iraq investigating mass graves,
have made much difference. Though fo-
so saying that “the Saddam regime
rensic scientists may have gone to Iraq as
was propped up with the bones of
entirely independent investigators with
the Iraqi people buried beneath its
no specific political agenda in mind, it
sands” [Reynolds 16th July 2003].
would be disingenuous to believe that
this was also the case for those who had To provide an idea of the media in-
109
110 FoRUM
volvement in such propaganda machin- example of a unwise idea of ethics, seen
ery it is worth mentioning that in this entirely within the boundary of profes-
same news article — and despite ample sionalism. In reality there cannot be ethi-
evidence that even by then things in Iraq cal behavior without political analysis and
had gone pear-shaped — Reynolds prais- Margaret Cox’s misguided collaboration
es Bush and Blair for having “in common with a war party led her to provide some
a sense of moral rectitude which leads kudos to a war she did not support.
them to seek bold solutions.” Eventually the work of the forensic
It is easy to see how the, surely well scientists in Iraq contributed to accumu-
meant, work of forensic archaeologists late evidence that was used to execute a
was being used as part of the war pro- number of individuals, including Saddam
paganda machine. The importance of Hussein. Additionally, it helped some of
this should not be underestimated as in the communities which had been perse-
July 2003 the British government was in cuted, the Kurds in particular, to achieve
deep trouble in justifying its support to some closure and know more about the
the invasion of Iraq. The war had gener- fate of their many friends and relatives
ated widespread unease in the popula- who had been massacred. We have seen
tion, leading to huge anti-war demon- what suspicious circumstances led to
strations, and there was also substantial such achievement, but it would be unrea-
opposition in the political world, even sonable not to sympathize with the needs
within the cabinet. With the various ex- of people, such as the Kurds, who had
cuses for war having all gradually been been oppressed for a long time. It would
proven to be spurious (e.g., the existence be equally unfair not to have admiration
of weapons of mass destruction in the for at least some aspects of the work of
hands of the Iraqis and the link between the forensic scientists.
the Ba’ath government and Al Qaeda first Their achievements, however, re-
and foremost) the British government quired dangerous liaisons with govern-
needed to work on the public opinion by ments responsible for an illegal war and
concentrating on the only element that protection from an army involved in
was unquestionably true: the brutality of the invasion of an independent country.
Saddam’s regime. But with people getting Questions therefore need to be asked.
gradually sceptical about the words of Why was the same level of humanitarian
the government and the prime minister concern not applied to the many other
widely perceived to be a liar and a puppet countries in the world where equally hei-
of the Americans, some hard evidence nous crimes have been committed and
was required, and the forensic scientists still are committed on a regular basis? It
were those who could provide it. cannot be a chance that most archaeo-
Margaret Cox has publicly expressed logical forensic work has been carried
her opposition to the Iraq war,1 so her out in countries such as Bosnia, Kosovo,
words about “the bones of the Iraqi peo- and Iraq, where it was supposed to un-
ple” cannot be taken as an attempt to pur- cover the dirty work of the enemies of the
posefully endorse the action of the British American and British governments. It
Government. They rather represent an is true that some work is also being un-
110
FoRUM 111
dertaken in countries where the position and therefore by allowing public scrutiny.
of the western powers is more neutral, This is admirable, but, despite much dis-
such as Rwanda or Guatemala, but if the cussion within the World Archaeological
main concern, is entirely humanitarian, Congress,2 my impression is that in ar-
why are the forensic scientists not risk- chaeology there has not been the same
ing their lives also in Columbia and Uz- level of soul searching that has occurred in
bekistan (close allies of the American and anthropology. It is interesting for instance
British governments) or indeed digging to compare the clear condemnation by
the Afghanistan villages where innocent the American Anthropological Associa-
civilians are regularly killed by American tion (AAA) of the so-called US Military’s
bombs? Why are they not joining forces Human Terrain System Project, which
with the few forensic archaeologists op- embeds anthropologists in military teams
erating in East Timor (Blau and Skinner in Iraq and Afghanistan, with the unwill-
2005), a country whose population was ingness of the World Archaeological Con-
decimated with the help of British-made gress executive to condemn cooperation
weapons? And why the forensic scien- of archaeologists with the military in the
tists operating in the Balkans and Iraq case of a hypothetical attack on Iran.
get so much institutional support while An extremely insightful contribu-
those trying to uncover the victims of tion to the topic has been provided by
the Spanish Civil War (cf. Gassiot Ballbè Hugh Gusterson, a researcher specialised
et al. 2007) are sidelined and encounter in the analysis of the political culture of
constant obstacles in their work? Finally, nuclear weapons. Gusterson (2007:164)
shall we see those same forensic scientists has suggested that anthropology, and I
currently working in Iraq eventually un- dare to add “archaeology,” was perceived
cover the bodies of those who were killed by some to play to the War on Terror the
by the bombs of the aggressors? The cir- same role as physics had to the Cold War.
cumstances of many civilian deaths in This has been an opportunity on which
Iraq are still in need of clarification, and many anthropologists and archaeologists
the actual number of victims is still only have been prepared to jump. Gusterson
vaguely known. There seems to be a great (p.165), however, points out that:
amount of necessary work for forensic
Militarism [ . . . ] is a life world with
scientists for years to come, but somehow
its own escalatory logic that takes
I suspect that the funding for such work
different forms while displaying
will not be provided quite as promptly.
fundamental underlying unities.
There are no simple answers to the
Despite these underlying unities,
questions above but they do highlight
local processes of militarization are
the need for an open and mature debate
invariably defended as defensive re-
within the archaeological world and per-
actions to someone else’s militarism
haps wider society. The archaeologists
from which they therefore differ in
who have “engaged” with the military and
moral character.
whom I criticise in this piece, have given
me this opportunity by being prepared to He suggests that a more valuable role
express their positions and ideas openly for anthropologists is the unmasking of
111
112 FoRUM
such militaristic ideological process of he was also opposed to the war). As staff
legitimization. Ultimately his key point is of the MoD put to him, the bombing of
that “anthropology has much theoretical Iraq was “the only game in town,” and
and empirical work to do to illuminate therefore a salvage operation was the only
militarism, the source of so much suffer- card he could play. At the end of his talk I
ing in the world today. If we sell our skills asked Peter if he would have provided the
to the national security state, we will just same level of collaboration had Britain
become part of the problem” (Gusterson decided to attack Denmark rather than
2007:165). Iraq. After some hesitation he answered
It is my point here that archaeology “yes.” It was of course the only answer he
has the knowledge and ability to fulfil a could provide as any others would have
similar role alongside anthropology, par- implied that his actions were qualified by
ticularly for its ability to provide a time his political position regarding the attack
depth to our understanding of human be- on Iraq. I was just exploring what level
havior. When we are too closely involved of political and humanitarian madness
with the activities of organizations and/ such professional advice was prepared
or institutions which have specific eco- to embrace. Had time allowed it I would
nomic and political interests we run the have gone further and asked what his po-
risk of losing our intellectual indepen- sition would have been had the target of
dence. Mourad (2007) has provided a the bombing been not Iraq or Denmark
useful historical account of how archae- but his own town. Would he have tried
ologists have often operated as servants to persuade the army to spare the local
of various empires during centuries of church despite knowing that many of his
Near Eastern conflicts. At the same time friends and family would have died as a
Ronayne (2007, 2008) has shown how we consequence of the bombing? I am not
can become subservient to established sure that he would have also answered
powers, not only by operating within the positively to this further question. This
military machine, but also by working just shows that ultimately our prepared-
within the remit of the big business. The ness to “engage” with the military is a
militarization and commercialization of measure of our level of empathy with the
archaeology are, in many respects, differ- victims. Though I understand many of the
ent elements of the same problem. arguments brought forward by the “pro-
At the last World Archaeological engagement” lobby in archaeology, and I
Congress in Dublin Peter Stone gave an care as much they do for the past heritage
excellent, clear, and honest account of his of Iraq, my repulsion of war is such that
involvement with the British Ministry in no way would I have been prepared to
of Defence in the wake of the invasion give any level of legitimization to a mili-
of Iraq (Stone 2008). He justified his in- tary that was in the process of initiating
volvement explaining that he felt that it such insane action. We should perhaps
was his duty to do all he could to protect have perceived the people of Iraq as far
the heritage of Iraq under circumstances away friends, whom one day we could
that were beyond his control and that in have met again, and our attitude would
fact he disapproved of (like Margaret Cox have then been different. In 2003 I wrote
112
FoRUM 113
an article on the reaction of archaeolo- beginning of the war there have
gists to the war in Iraq, which I concluded been between 89,600 and 97,828
with the words “Iraq was attacked with violent civilian deaths in Iraq.
the consent of the archaeological com-
munity” (Albarella 2003:2). Five years References Cited
and almost 100,000 civilian deaths later3 I Albarella, Umberto
still see no reason to change my mind. 2003 The Responsibilities of Ar-
chaeology. AAW Newsletter Vol.1 (2)
Acknowledgments
July 2003:1–2.
I would like to thank Donald Craib for in- Arnold, Bettina, and Henning Hassmann
viting me to write this piece, Sarah Viner 1995 Archaeology in Nazi Germany:
and Susan Forbes for comments on an The Legacy of the Faustian Bargain. In
earlier draft and Yannis Hamilakis, Roger Nationalism, Politics, and the Practice
Doonan, and the community of Archae- of Archaeology, edited by Philip L.
ologists for Global Justice (AGJ) http:// Kohl and Clare Fawcett, pp. 70–81.
www.shef.ac.uk/archaeology/global- Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.
justice.html for inspiring discussion on Blau, Soren and Mark Skinner
this subject. I am also grateful to Jim Sy- 2005 The Use of Forensic Archaeol-
monds for introducing me to the work of ogy in the Investigation of Human
Norman Lewis. Rights Abuse: Unearthing the Past in
East Timor. The International Journal
of Human Rights 9(4):449–63.
Notes
Cox, Margaret
1. I personally heard this in 2003 A Multidisciplinary Approach
the occasion of a talk that to the Investigation of Crimes Against
Margaret Cox gave as part of Humanity, War Crimes and Genocide:
a session entitled: “An eternal the Inforce Foundation. Science &
conflict? Archaeology and social Justice 43(4):225–7.
responsibility in the post-Iraq Gassiot Balbe, Ermengol, Joaquim Puig-
world” which I organized as part of domench, Elena Sintes olives, and
the Theoretical Archaeology Group Dawnie Wolfe Steadman
Conference held in Sheffield in 2007 The Archaeology of the Span-
December 2005. ish Civil War: Recovering Memory
2. open discussion within WAC may and Historical Justice. In Archaeology
in fact now be a thing of the past, as and Capitalism. From Ethics to Poli-
proven by the recent decision of the tics, edited by Yannis Hamilakis and
WAC executive to censor messages Philip Duke, pp. 235–46. Left Coast
sent to the WAC email list. Press, Walnut Creek, California.
3. According to the latest figure (9th Gusterson, Hugh
December 2008) provided by the 2007 Anthropology and Milita-
Iraq Body Count http://www. rism. Annual Review of Anthropology
iraqbodycount.org/ since the 36:155–176.
113
114 FoRUM
Hamilakis, Yannis Corporate Takeover. Public Archaeol-
2003 Iraq, Stewardship and “The ogy 7(2): 114–129.
Record”. An Ethical Crisis for Archae- Roy, Arundhati
ology. Public Archaeology 3:104–111. 2001 Power Politics. South End,
Lewis, Norman Cambridge, Massachusetts.
2002 [1978] Naples ’44. An Intel- Stone, Peter
ligence Officer in the Italian Labyrinth. 2005 The Identification and Protec-
Eland, London. tion of Cultural Heritage During the
Mourad, Tamima orra Iraq Conflict: a Peculiarly English
2007 An Ethical Archaeology in the Tale. Antiquity 79:933–143.
Near East: Confronting Empire, War Stone, Peter
and Colonisation. In Archaeology and 2008 Keynote Speech. In “Archaeol-
Capitalism. From Ethics to Politics, ogy in the Context of War,” Session
edited by Yannis Hamilakis and Philip Held at the 6th World Archaeological
Duke, 151–168. Left Coast Press ,Wal- Congress, Dublin 29 June — 4 July
nut Creek, California. 2008.
Reynolds, Paul Teijgeler, Rene
2003 Iraq Woes Bedevil UK-US 2006a Embedded Archaeology: Does
Ties. BBC News 16th July 2003. Elec- it Work? Paper Presented at the Con-
tronic document, http://news.bbc. ference “Archaeology in Conflict,” 10
co.uk/2/hi/americas/3071801.stm, –12 June 2006, London, UK,.
accessed December 10, 2008. 2006b Preserving Cultural Heritage
Ronayne, Maggie in Times of Conflict. In Preservation
2007 The Culture of Caring and Management for Libraries, Archives
its Destruction in the Middle East: and Museums, edited by Gary E. Gor-
Women’s Work, Water, War and man and Sydney J. Shep, pp. 133–165.
Archaeology. In Archaeology and Facet, London.
Capitalism. From Ethics to Politics,
edited by Yannis Hamilakis and Philip About the Author
Duke, 247–166. Left Coast Press, Wal- Umberto Albarella, Department of
nut Creek, California. Archaeology, Northgate House, West
Ronayne, Maggie Street , University of Sheffield, Sheffield
2008 The State We’re In on the Eve S1 4ET, United Kingdom. (u.albarella@
of World Archaeological Congess sheffield.ac.uk)
(WAC) 6: Archaeology in Ireland vs
114