an ethnography of teaching archaeology

An Ethnography of Teaching Archaeology

Talia Shay, Ariel University Center of Samaria, Ariel, Israel

E-mail: [email protected]

ABSTRACT________________________________________________________________

The purpose of this article is threefold. First, it refers to the ethics and logos

of my courses in archaeology of the Near East and Israel attended by both

Jewish and Arab students whose spatialisation of history and memory is

different. The courses cover two periods: a—from prehistory to about 1,000

B.C; b—Christian and Muslim eras. Although these courses put much

emphasis on Israel, the major sites of the Near East are well represented.

Second, this article delineates some problems in the epistemology of Israeli

archaeology, especially the slender consideration given to recent

postmodern attitudes. Third, this article maps out an alternative way of

teaching archaeology in contested regions such as Israel where different

communities have their own mappings of the past. This alternative way

provides the students with tools to evaluate the creation of knowledge

about the past, and to reflect on their own social and relative positions in

Israeli society.________________________________________________________________

Resume: L’objectif de cet article est triple. Tout d’abord, il fait reference a

l’ethique et au logos de mes cours d’archeologie du Proche-Orient et

d’Israel donnes a des etudiants juifs et arabes dont la spatialisation de

l’histoire et de la memoire sont distincts. Les cours couvrent deux periodes:

a—de la prehistoire jusqu’a environ 1 000 avant Jesus Christ ; b—puis les

eres chretiennes et musulmanes. Bien que ces cours mettent une emphase

importante sur Israel, les sites majeurs du Proche-Orient sont bien

representes. Ensuite, cet article determine certains problemes concernant

l’epistemologie de l’archeologie d’Israel, tout specialement la faible

consideration donnee aux attitudes de la post-modernite recentes. Enfin, cet

article met au point une facon alternative d’enseignement de l’archeologie

dans des regions contestees comme Israel, ou differentes communautes ont

leurs propres conceptions du passe. Cette alternative fournit aux etudiants

les outils permettant d’evaluer l’elaboration de la connaissance de l’histoire,

et d’etre le reflet de leurs propres positions sociales dans la societe israelite.________________________________________________________________

Resumen: Este trabajo tiene tres propositos claros: el primero es presentar la

etica y la razon de mis cursos de arqueologıa en Oriente Proximo e Israel, a

RE

SE

AR

CH

AR

CH

AE

OLO

GIE

SV

olu

me

4N

um

ber

2A

ug

ust

20

08

328 � 2008 World Archaeological Congress

Archaeologies: Journal of the World Archaeological Congress (� 2008)

DOI 10.1007/s11759-008-9065-9

los que asisten tanto alumnos judıos como arabes cuya nocion espacial y

memoria historica difieren bastante. Los cursos cubren dos periodos: el

primero abarca de la prehistoria al 1,000 A.C., y el segundo cubre las eras

cristiana y musulmana. Aunque en estos cursos se hace bastante hincapie

en Israel, se estudian tambien a fondo los principales lugares del Proximo

Oriente. El segundo objetivo es perfilar algunos problemas epistemologicos

de la arqueologıa israelı, en especial, la escasa consideracion dada a las

recientes actitudes postmodernas. El tercer objetivo del trabajo es idear una

forma alternativa de ensenar arqueologıa en paıses en litigio como Israel,

donde las diferentes comunidades tienen distintas ideas del pasado. Esta

forma alternativa de ensenar proporcionarıa a los estudiantes herramientas

para evaluar la obtencion de conocimientos sobre el pasado y reflexionar

sobre sus propias posiciones sociales y relativas en la sociedad israelı._______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

KEY WORDS

Ethnography, Archaeology, Teaching_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Ethics

Just before leaving Israel to present an early version of this article at the12th Congress of the Panafrican Archaeological Association for Prehistoryand Related Studies, Botswana (Shay 2005:135–136) I read an article in adaily newspaper (Ha’aretz, June 23rd. 2005:d1, d8. Hebrew) written by aretired professor from one of the leading academic institutes of the coun-try. The author blamed the institute for instilling into the students thehegemonic and dominant ideas of the establishment in order to create pro-fessional civil servants. By their fifth year, he says, the students are alreadyinarticulate and incapable of critical thinking. For many years I have beenteaching courses in archaeology in the same institute. My experience is dif-ferent from his and rather exciting, especially in view of the changing atti-tudes of the students who seem to understand that the past is morecomplex than they had thought and that its reconstruction is a powerfultool that may have an impact on the politics of identity. This articledescribes my thoughts on the subject.

Why should someone study archaeology if he/she has no intention to bean archaeologist? I have found that for my courses on archaeology, thereare only few students who are interested in general human evolution. Mostof the students, however, who attend these courses, consider the past worthknowing and preserving because they belong to present-day communitiesthat claim cultural connection with the past. As a result, mainly Jews, with

An Ethnography of Teaching Archaeology 329

different cultural aspirations, traditional-oriental or modernistic-western,attend the courses on early periods from prehistory to 1,000 B.C. Thecourses on Christian and Moslem periods are attended primarily by Arabs,either Christian or Moslem. Students born in the former USSR, whose cul-tural heritage was more classical than that of Israeli born students, indicatea slight diversion from the above pattern. These students participate inboth courses on the early and the later periods, and show interest inprehistory and classical periods (Roman, Byzantine, etc.) as well.

These archaeological courses are structured around ethical issues, theo-retical approaches and practical examples. I usually start by introducingmyself as an Israeli born to my father, an immigrant from Argentine, andto my mother, a native, whose grandparents had immigrated to Israel inthe 19th century from Russia. As a young woman, I tell my students, I wasgreatly distressed by the tensions in a country contested between two peo-ples who claim the same land, a country caught up in the struggle betweeneastern and western traditions, religion and modernity (Shay 1989) andthe struggle of women for equal rights. These tensions affected me bothpersonally and professionally.

In order to illustrate the ethical issues involved, I usually discuss thedrawn-out conflict that started in the 19th century between archaeologistsand ultra-religious groups who, in order to defend the ‘‘dignity ofthe dead’’, bitterly opposed the excavation of the Tombs of the Kings inJerusalem (Ben-Asher 1874:297–392; Shay 1992).

I also introduce another ethical issue, which concerns contesting pointsof view of Arab and Israeli youth movements toward landscape and history(Shay et al. 1999). Basing on the idea that landscape has social meaning(Levi-Strauss 1981:95; Bender 1995:1–2) the authors conducted interviewsduring the 90s with Mr. Abed Hamzi, leader of the Social-Democratic ArabYouth Movement (AYM). AYM at the time of our research consisted of2,500 members in 38 Arab centers in the north of the country. We alsointerviewed hiking Arab youngsters during our own excursions in thecountryside. We observed and were informed that the youngsters traveledto natural sites, such as the spring of Hazeva, in cooperation with theNational Society for Nature Preservation (Gazawi 1984:16), to historicalMoslem sites, such as Dhar el Omar’s fortress from the 18th century, andto locations relevant to the Israel-Arab history since 1948, such as Iqrit andBir’am (Magad 1999:18) and Kafer Kasm, and to the now populated butofficially ‘unrecognized’ villages, where they conducted rituals on the occa-sions of certain memorial days. Mr. Hamzi informed us that these destina-tions were chosen in order to forge the youngsters’ personalities byadapting to natural conditions, as well as to introduce them to the tradi-tional ways of living. On the basis of the above data we concluded thatthese journeys were set up as pilgrimage (Turner 1974:166–230) to sites

330 TALIA SHAY

that are implicated as a template in the process of remembering recent pastevents in order to mold the youngsters’ national identity.

Our observations were further cross-culturally compared with the well-documented literature from the 90s on Jewish Youth Movements (e.g.Shtal 1981; Katz 1985; Feldman 1984; Brur-Ben David 1998; Bauman 2004;Ha’aretz, January 3d. 2008:2:2; Greenberg 2008 www.ynet.co.il/articles/0,7340,L-3512376,00.html). According to this extensive literature, JewishYouth Movements started to exhibit modernistic and western attitudestoward landscape after the 18th–19th centuries. This attitude contrastedthe previous traditional ‘‘negative’’ Jewish attitude to nature, containingelements of land, agriculture and animals, which had been the concern ofgentiles only (Shtal 1981:1–3). The western attitude to landscape, on theother hand, considers it as a historic, well-defined space, which delineatesand validates mythical social memories. In New Guinea and North Austra-lia, for example, this western attitude involved a change in land use basedon a denial that it had a previous history (Kuchler 1995:85–106; Morphy1995 205–243). Hiking in Israel, as I experienced in my youth, dependedon the belief that the landscape of Israel belonged to its people. This beliefwas ritually reenacted by constant activities of ‘‘conquering the land onfoot’’ (Katz 1985; Brur Ben-David 1998:452).

These two studies of secular versus ultra-religious attitudes towardarchaeology, and Jewish versus Arab attitudes toward landscape, illustratethe argument that a member of one culture may relate differently to his-tory than a member of the ‘‘other’’ culture.

At this point of my course, I encourage the students to introduce them-selves and ask them of their expectations from the course. Their response,reluctantly given at first, has so far confirmed my assumption that theirinterest in the past is related to the political present, and as such they areconcerned mainly about their own cultural heritage. Their unanimousresponse is altered by the end of the course (see below).

As a summary of this chapter in my courses I mention that it is recog-nized today that historical knowledge can produce a tangible influence onpeople’s identities. This is especially relevant in places such as Israel orCyprus (Abu El Haj 1998:166; Benvenisti 1997; Chadwick 2005; Scott 2002),where the various stakeholders have their own mappings of the past. InCyprus, for example, after the division of the island in 1974, there havebeen two ‘‘grand narratives’’ of the past. The Greek-Cypriot’s versionfocuses on a long-standing Greek presence on the island and argues for theGreek origins of civilization in Cyprus. The Turkish–Cypriot’s version, how-ever, fits into a pattern of heterogeneity, discontinuity and regional diversityof Cyprus. As a result of the complexity of modern life, many archaeologiststoday put much emphasis on the inquiry into the relationship betweenpeople and their past (e.g. Hodder 2003:62; Pyburn 2005:3; 2006:3).


Logos–Theories and Practice

This article focuses primarily on the ethnography of teaching archaeologyof the earlier periods from prehistory to about 1,000 B.C. Though itemphasizes Israel, other Near Eastern sites are well represented. Thecourses draw attention to various perspectives including social complexity,cultural issues, as well as technical development in the area. These perspec-tives are further analyzed in relation to three theoretical approaches (seebelow). Later periods of Christian and Moslem archaeology are mentionedonly briefly in this article, for the purpose of comparison alone. The expe-rience of teaching later periods deserves the writing of another manuscript.

As this is an introductory course, only three major theoreticalapproaches are mentioned: the Traditional/Historic, Scientific and Postco-lonial approaches. These approaches have provided at different periods oftime the support and constraints of the archaeological interpretation andreconstruction of the past. The students are requested to use all these threetheories in their final assignment, which involves the description and anal-ysis of one archaeological site from Israel or elsewhere. These theories pro-vide the students with analytical dimensions, as well as critical perspectivesthat enable them to evaluate the particular excavation that they havechosen and its interpretation.

Traditional/Historical Approach

Until the mid-20th century the main concern of archaeologists was tobuild a chronological sequence of early cultures and reconstruct their inter-regional economic and trade relations. The organizing framework underwhich these archaeologists operated was mostly constructed around a seriesof implicit evolutionary and materialist assumptions and covered both pre-historic and historic periods. Given their interest in chronology, archaeolo-gists dealing with historic periods operated under the conviction that therehad been a direct relationship between material culture and historicalevents. Furthermore, these archaeologists routinely searched for direct his-torical connections between contemporary residents of a country and itsarchaeological cultures (Lyman and O’Brien 2001:303; Blake and Knapp2005:11). As a result, archaeology has very often contributed to shapemodern national identity (Funari 2001:86; Rosen 2005).

Biblical archaeology developed out of the historical approach to the bib-lical texts, and in spite of recent trends in world archaeology (see below),it has never fully abandoned the traditional/historical wrap, focusing onwriting a narrative history within the biblical framework by compilingtypologies and dealing with chronological questions (e.g. Anfinset 2003:47,

332 TALIA SHAY

53; Finkelstein and Silverman 2001, 2002; Killebrew 2005:3–5; Kletter 2006;Shay 1993; Singer 2005:167; Davis 2004:vii–ix–to quote only a few fromthe extensive literature on the subject).

Scientific or New Archaeology Approach

By the mid-twentieth century (Lyman and O’Brien 2001:303.), when theproblems of chronology were less significant, archaeologists began toaddress anthropological concerns and assumptions about human socialbehavior. Darwinian evolutionism of the Traditional/Historical approachwas replaced by explanations of cultural changes as evolutionary variationsfollowing a defined direction. Instead of historical analogy, the Scientificapproach used general comparative analogy, in which similarities betweenethnographic sources and archaeological subjects were the result of conver-gence. Special emphasis was also placed on environmental and ecologicalissues. Although much criticized, this approach has inspired the formationof other approaches, such as the Processual and Post-Processual attitudes(Ucko 1995:13ff). A glance at many textbooks dealing with archaeology ofthe land of the Bible (Killebrew 2005:5; Rosen 2005) reveals that biblicalarchaeology has incorporated many elements of these ‘‘scientific’’approaches and focused on questions relating to material culture and soci-ety (e.g. Levi 1995; Faust and Aren 1999; Faust 2000, 2001; Rosen 2005).The wider human perspectives of the Scientific approach and its deriva-tions may have contributed, in my opinion, indirectly and partially, tothe tourist orientation of archaeological excavations in Israel from the 90s(Rabinovich 1994), which present a vivid panorama of history understand-able to the layperson.

Postcolonial

Since the 1980s anthropologists and archaeologists have abandoned modelsemphasizing local stability of bounded and rooted cultures. Instead, theyhave shifted to models emphasizing, firstly, mobility beyond boundaries,secondly, decentralization of one culture and authority and, finally, con-nectedness, which creates new diasporas. These three concepts are inresponse to the greatest social phenomenon of our era—globalization(Morris 2003:30–40).

The new approach falls also under the heading of postmodern philoso-phy (Sim 2005:57), a wide philosophical school that includes names such asBaudrillard, Derrida, Harvey, Foucault and Deleuze. These and other think-ers have reacted especially against modernism and its social and politicalfailings. Their reaction has taken the form of skepticism about authority, at


both the theoretical and political level. These scholars also oppose the ideathat the world is intrinsically knowable and that this knowledge can beachieved scientifically (Mark 1998:140–159). Finally they are committed topluralism and cultural difference (Sim 2005:x–xi, 3–10).

Much of world archaeological discourse today is embedded in the post-colonial approach. It provides archaeology with a few advantages. Firstly,in my point of view, it has analytical power adequate for interpreting mate-rial culture based on the three criteria—‘‘mobility’’, ‘‘decentralization’’ and‘‘connectedness’’, mentioned above. Furthermore, the postcolonial dis-course provides a potential way to criticize former thinking about the pastby suggesting alternative ways of viewing it in relation to the political plu-rality in the past and present (e.g. Black and Knapp 2005:1–25; Hordenand Purcell 2000:1–7; Hotorf 2005; Gosden 2004; Morris 2003:40; Pagan-Jimenez 2004:200; Restrepo and Escobar 2005; Werbner 1996:27). Feministapproaches, for example, which are included under the vast heading ofpostcolonial approach (Sim 2005:6), exemplifies a critical engagement ofclaims to objectivity and awareness to issues of inequality of access topower (Adams 2005:433; Hendon 2005:24–25, 30; Ranger 1996:271; Roy2001:236).

An Israeli archaeologist (Bunimovitz 2001) is of the opinion that thereis a postmodern biblical archaeology (see also Rosen 2005) characterizedby the study of both biblical texts and archaeological data as well as aninterpretative procedure of archaeology. As this approach takes no consid-eration of contemporary society and its inequality of access to power, Iwonder whether it should really be called Postmodern. In general, theimpact of the Postcolonial approach has very limited influence on Israeliarchaeologists so far (Dauphin 2003; Killebrew 2004), partly as a result ofthe nature of allocation of public funds to archaeology (Ibid:43; Hodder2003:57). Apart from a few daily newspaper clippings that refer to theabuse of archaeology by political powers in Jerusalem (Ha’aretz 08.09.06:2,1; 22.10.07; 16.10.07: 2 Hebrew), only few articles consider the new issuesthat have been raised by the postcolonial approach and the responsibilityof archaeology to contemporary society. One of these few articles (ShaiAron 2003) refers to the cooperation between archaeologists and theauthorities in a project that ended in the removal of a hundred desertedArab villages in the 60s. Another (Bauman 2004) discusses the inequalityof access to means of commemoration in Israeli National Parks Authority(INPA), in particular the preservation and representation of ancient Zippo-ri/Saffouriye. Until the Israeli conquest in 1948, this popular national parkwas part of a large Palestinian village in the north of the country. Thearchaeological park, however, displays particularly the classical periods,especially Roman and Jewish, and obliterates all modern history, whichremains buried under the lovely artificial greenery. There are also a few

334 TALIA SHAY

studies by Greenberg concerning identity politics. They include the forma-tion of local identity of a heterogeneous population in a local suburb com-munity, where the author has been acting as a mediator between thepublic, the academy and the authorities (Greenberg 2005). Greenberg(2007) has also published a monograph on Israeli diggings in the WestBank and East Jerusalem since 1967 and its relevance to identity formationfor both the Israelis and the Palestinians. In a recent publication (Green-berg 2008) he condemns archaeological diggings in Jerusalem as leadingthe path away from any political solution instead of providing a basis for adialogue between the Palestinians and the Israelis. Greenberg’s attitude isnoteworthy in contrast to other archaeologists engaged in salvage excava-tions of early Islamic sites, who very seldom (Nahlieli 1992) refer to iden-tity politics (e.g. Sears and Ariel 2000; Kletter 2004, 2005; Rosen 2005).

The relation between theories and data in my courses on archaeology isfurther explained by the presentation of material culture in chronologicalorder from prehistory to the end of the Late Bronze (approximately at theend of the second millennium B.C.). As my course is an introductory one,it is appropriate to introduce the prehistoric ornate caves of Europe as astarting point. This magnificent material, with which I am well acquaintedthanks to a grant from the C.N.R.S., is part of the common cultural heri-tage of mankind and explains further developments of human culture, likethe invention of writing in the Near East. Introducing the students to thismaterial, I believe, broadens their horizon beyond their limited interest inthe past as related to their political present. Following this material, thesuccessive archaeological periods, starting with the Neolithic, are intro-duced, in relation to the different approaches that have been used toexplain them.

Thus, for example, three interpretations are suggested in relation to theChalcolithic era, dated more or less to the 4th millennium B.C. This periodis very rich in material culture and includes planned villages with privateand public spaces, cemeteries and different artifacts made of diverse rawmaterials (Shay 2004:301). When first found, not too long after the decla-ration of the State of Israel, a zealous archaeologist dated it in accordancewith the native nationalistic spirit of those days to the period of Jewish his-tory around the 2nd century A.D. (Moorey 1988:170; Heiman 1992:260).However, shortly afterwards the dates were changed to the 4th millenniumB.C.

This material has been interpreted by three approaches. According to thefirst approach, which uses evolutionary model, the Chalcolithic period wasa local ‘‘peasant’’ culture with ties to other Near Eastern traditions, andevolving later into the successive and more advanced ‘‘urban’’ culture of theBronze Age (e.g. Garfinkel 1994:159). The second approach—the Scien-tific—has focused on the ‘‘chiefdom-like’’ organization of the Chalcolithic


society and on ecological aspects (Levy 1995:238). According to the postco-lonial approach, it is possible to focus on the dynamic, multi-cultural con-nections between Near Eastern communities, instead of considering theperiod as a step in the evolution towards the more advanced urban cultureof Early Bronze age.

Other periods are dealt with similarly. For the Neolithic period (predat-ing the Chalcolithic period), for instance, I introduce, in addition to dataand their alternative interpretations, also some feminist studies concerningwomen’s position in early Near Eastern agricultural communities (e.g.Molleson 1994; Hodder 2004). For the Bronze age (postdating the Chalco-lithic period), I mention, in addition to the archaeological data, also his-torical documents from the Near East, and the hierarchical approach of theearly scholars of the Traditional/Historical approach who focused on distri-bution of wealth, while excluding other dimensions, such as ethnicity andgender, which were brought up by the Scientific approach (Faust and Aren1999).

In the age of populism, one can easily use a few archaeological films inorder to enhance understanding of the field of archaeology through funactivities (Smith and Burke 2005). This medium, which has become a newfield for academic inquiry, is especially susceptible to contemporary ideas(Moser 2002; Fife 2004:163; Talaly 2004), such as post-modernity. Showingsome recent movies on archaeology, such as Indiana Jones, enables me todiscuss what are the popular perceptions about archaeology, archaeologistsand the archaeological records, as reflected by the movie, versus academicconcepts. It also enables me to discuss the impact of postmodern ideas (seeabove under the Postcolonial approach) on the way the archaeological pastis represented by this movie.

The three approaches mentioned above are further examined on a fieldtrip to a historic, reconstructed, tourist site. Walking along the paths, thestudents are asked to comment on the methods of excavation, the histori-cal knowledge contributed by the reconstruction of the site, as well aswhether the presentation and representation of the ancient site offer equalaccess to means of commemoration to all citizens of the country. Sittingon benches in the shade provided by the national park we discuss thesequestions.

Although the conversation was far from calm I was delighted to findout that, contrary to our first conversation, the students during the fieldtrip no longer adhered to their original, almost unanimous point of viewthat the past was worth studying only because they belonged to communi-ties that claimed cultural connection with the past. A small group felt freeto express its disagreement with the plan of the course that focused on therelationship between archaeology, theory and politics. They would havepreferred a course presenting more archaeological finds from the land of

336 TALIA SHAY

Israel without theories or politics. This opinion, however, was contested bya larger group consisting mostly, but not solely, of Arab students whoargued heartily that Palestinian history was effaced by the predominantculture in Israel. As in our first conversation I appealed to other studentsand asked them to express their opinion on the curriculum of the course.Although their appreciation was general and disregarded their personalspecialization of history and memory, nevertheless they agreed that the pastmight be illuminated in various ways, depending on one’s point of viewand cultural heritage. They approved of the original purpose of the course.

As for my other courses on the more recent archaeology of the Chris-tian and Moslem periods, some of the theories, as well as the material cul-ture presented, are different. Field trips are taken to places that includeremnants of ‘‘bygone-times’’ (see Photograph 1) that inhabit the contem-porary landscape (Abu El Haj 1998:179). The ethnography of these courses,however, deserves the writing of another article.

Summary

The students participating in my courses on the archaeology of the earlyNear East and Israel consider the past worth knowing primarily becausethey belong to communities that claim connection with the past. Studentswho differ from each other on the basis of culture, gender, origin, ethnicityand creed take this attitude almost unanimously. Their attitude, however,changes toward the end of the course as they become aware of the com-plexity of the past and that knowledge formation on the past may havetangible influence on people’s identities. It is suggested that this change ofattitude takes place, firstly, because they acquire more knowledge of thearchaeology of the region. Secondly, and more essential, their change ofattitude may be affected by the critical tools provided in the course,namely the theories responsible for the formation and interpretation of thearcheological data. This enables them to evaluate the formation of archaeo-logical knowledge, as well as to consider the possible impact it has on peo-ple’s destinies. Such a presentation, as I have shown, stimulates thestudents to reflect on their own social and relative positions in Israelisociety.

I would like to end this article on a personal note—I am aware that amere scholarly effort cannot change inequality in the access to means ofcommemoration of the past, not in Israel, nor elsewhere. However, aresearcher’s awareness of the history of others and of relations of powermay create some kind of dialogue between people having different map-ping of the past as has happened between Jewish and Arab students in mycourses.


References Cited

Adams, M.K.2005. Public Interest Anthropology in Heritage Sites: Writing Culture and

Righting Wrongs. International Journal of heritage Studies 11(5):433–439.

Abu el-Haj, N.1998. Translating Truth: Nationalism, the Practice of Archaeology, and the

Remaking of Past and Present in Contemporary Jerusalem. American Eth-nologist 25(2):166–188.

Anfinset, N.2003. A Passion for Cultural Difference. Archaeology and Ethnicity of the

Southern Levant. Norwegian Archaeological Review 36(1):45–63.

Bauman, J.2004. Tourism, the Ideology of Design, and the Nationalized Past in Zippori/

Sephoris, an Israeli National Park. In Marketing Heritage, edited by R.Yorke and U. Baram, pp. 205–228. Altamira Press, Oxford.

Ben-Asher, J.1874. Tur Yoreh Dea. Hilkhot Kevura, 297–302. Argalbrand, Warsaw (Hebrew).

Bender, B. (editor)1995. Landscape Politics and Perspectives. Berg, Oxford.

Benvenisti, M.1997. The Hebrew Map. Teoria ve-Bikoret 11:7–29 (Hebrew).

Blake, E., and B. Knapp (editors)2005. The Archaeology of Mediterranean Prehistory. Blackwell, Oxford.

Photograph 1. A run down house on Jaffa Rd. in the Arab section of Haifa showingneglect

338 TALIA SHAY

Brur Ben-David, O.1998. Society and Nature in Youth Excursions of the Society for the Preservation

of Nature. In Israel: Local Anthropology, edited by O. Abuhab et al., pp.451–483 (Hebrew).

Bunimovitz, S.2001. Cultural Interpretation and Biblical Text. Biblical Archaeology in the Post-

modern Era. Kathedra 100:27–46 (Hebrew).

Chadwick, R.J.2005. The City of the Patriarch Slowly Yields Its Secrets. Biblical Archaeological

Review 31(5):25–33.

Davis, T.2004. Shifting Sands. Oxford University Press, Oxford.

Dauphin, C.2003. Rural, Landscape, Settlement Archaeology and Political Ideology. Bulletin

of the Anglo-Israel Archaeological Society 21:65–86.

Faust, A.2000. Ethnic Complexity in Northern Israel during Iron Age II. Palestine Explo-

ration Quarterly 132:2–27.

2001. Burnished Pottery and Gender Hierarchy in Iron Age I Israelite Society.Journal of Mediterranean Archaeology 15(1):53–73.

Faust, A., and A. Maeir (editors)1999. Material Culture, Society and Ideology. New Directions in the Archaeology

of the Holy Land. Bar-Ilan University, Ramat Gan (Hebrew).

Feldman, Y.1985. Good Tidings Came from the South. Teva va-Aretz 29:26–27 (Hebrew).

Fife, W.2004. Penetrating Types: Conflating Modernist and Postmodernist Tourism on

the Great Northern Peninsula of Newfoundland. Journal of American Folk-lore 117:147–167.

Finkelstein, I., and N.A. Silverman2001. Archaeology and the Bible. Looking from the Center. Kathedra 100:47–64

(Hebrew).

2002. The Bible Unearthed. Touchstone, New York.

Funari, P.P.2001. Book Review. World Archaeology Bulletin 13:82–88.

Garfinkel, Y.1994. Ritual Burial of Cultic Objects; The Earliest Evidence. Cambridge Archaeo-

logical Journal 4(2):159–188.


Gazawi, M.1984. Four Years of Activities in the Arab Section of the Society for Preservation

of Nature. Teva va-Aretz 26(3):16–18 (Hebrew).

Gosden, C.2004. Archaeology and Colonialism: Cultural Control from 5000 BC to the Present.

Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Greenberg, R.2005. Archaeology and Community at Rogem Ganim (West Jerusalem). A lec-

ture presented at the Annual Meeting of the American School of OrientalResearch, Philadelphia, PA.

2008. Contested Sites. Archaeology and the Battle for Jerusalem. Jewish Quar-terly (February).

Greenberg, R., and A. Keinanl2007. The Present Past of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict: Israel Archaeology in

the West Bank and East Jerusalem since 1967. Research Papers 1 (Tel AvivUniversity):1–57.

Harvey, D.1998. The Condition of Postmodernity. Blackwell, Oxford.

Heiman, S.1992. Pessah, Bar-Adon, A Portrait of an Archaeologist. In The Limitations of

Archaeological Knowledge, edited by T. Shay and J. Clottes, Eraul 49,Liege:2 59–261.

Hendon, A.J.2005. Fact or Speculation? How a Feminist Perspective Can Help Students

Understanding What Archaeologists Know and Why They Think TheyKnow It. Archaeologies 1.2:21–32.

Hodder, I.2003. Archaeological Reflexivity and the ‘‘Local ‘‘ Voice. Anthropological Quar-

terly 76(1):55–69.

2004. Women and Men at Chatal Huyuk. Scientific American (January Issue):35–40.

Holtorf, C.2005. Beyond Crusades: How (not) to Engage with Alternative Archaeologies.

World Archaeology 37(4):544–551.

Horden, P., and N. Purcell2000. The Corrupting Sea. Blackwell, Oxford.

Katz, S.1985. The Israeli Teacher-Guide; the Emergence and Perpetuation of Role.

Annals of Tourism Reseach 12:49–72.

340 TALIA SHAY

Killebrew, A.E.2004. Archaeology and the Public in the 21st Century. The View From Israel.

Interpreting the Past: Presenting Archaeological Sites to the Public. Pro-ceedings of an International Conference on New Approaches and Tech-nologies for Heritage Presentation I, Brussels, 43–54.

2005. Biblical People and Ethnicity. Society of Biblical Literature, Atlanta.

Kletter, R.2004. Jaffa, Roslan Street. Atiqot 47:193–206.

2005. Early Islamic Remains at ‘Opher Park, Ramla. Atiqot 49:93–97.

2006. Just Past? The Making of Israeli Archaeology. Equinox, London.

Kuchler, S.1995. Landscape as Memory. In Landscape Politics and Perspectives, edited by

B. Bender, pp. 86–106. Berg, Oxford.

Levi, E.T.1995. Cult, Metallurgy and Rank Societies–Chalcolithic Period (ca.4500–3500).

In Archaeology of Society in the Holy Land, edited by E.T. Levi, pp. 326–344. Facts on File, NY.

Levi-Strauss, C.1981. The Savage Mind. Weidenfeld, J. Nicolson, London.

Lyman, R.L., and M.J. O’Brien2001. The Direct Historical Approach, Analogical Reasoning and Theory in

Americanist Archaeology. Journal of Archaeological Material and Theory8(4):303–342.

Magad, I.1999. Bira’m: A Conscripted Community of Memory and Maintenanace of

Voice. Border and Beyonds, The Annual Conference of the Israeli Anthropo-logical Association. Nazareth.

Mark, J.1998. Gilles Deleuze. Pluto Press, London.

Moorey, P.R.S.1988. The Chalcolithic Hoard from Nahal Mishmar, Israel in Context. World

Archaeology 20(2):171–189.

Morphy, H.1995. Colonialism, History and the Construction of Place The Politics of Land-

scape in Northern Australia. In Landscape Politics and Perspectives, editedby B. Bender, pp. 205–243. Berg, Oxford.

Molleson, T.1994. The Eloquent Bones of Abu Hureya. Scientific American 271(2):60–65.


Morris, I.2003. Mediterraneanization: Mediterranean Historical Review 18(2):30–55.

Moser, S.2002. Archaeological Representation. The Visual Conventions for Constructing

Knowledge about the Past. In Archaeological Theory Today, edited by IanHodder, pp. 264–284. Polity, Oxford.

Nahliali, D.1992. Arabic Archaeology. Svivot (December):30–39 (Hebrew).

Pagan-Jimenez, R.J.2004. Is all Archaeology at Present a Postcolonial One?. Journal of Social Archae-

ology 4(2):200–213.

Pyburn, K.A.2005. Past Pedagogy. Archaeologies 1(2):1–6.

2006. The Politics of Collapse. Archaeologies 2(1):3–7.

Rabinovich, A.1994. Inside the Israel Antiquities Authority. Biblical Archeological Review 58:

40–46.

Ranger, T.1996. Colonial and Postcolonial Identities. In Postcolonial in Africa, edited by R.

Werbner, and T. Ranger, pp. 271–282. Zed, London.

Restrepo, E., and A. Escobar2005. Other Anthropologies and Anthropology Otherwise. Critique in Anthropol-

ogy 25(2):99–129.

Rosen, S.2005. Coming of Age: The Decline of Archaeology in Israeli Identity. Ben Gurion

Review (Spring).

Roy, A.2001. Epilogue. ‘‘The Reverse Side of the World’’: Identity, Space, and Power.

In Hybrid Urbanism, edited by A. Nezar, pp. 229–245. Praeger, London.

Scott, J.2002. Mapping the Past: Turkish Cypriot Narratives of Time and Place in the

Canbulat Museum, Northern Cyprus. History and Anthropology13(3):217–230.

Sears, D.S., and D.T. Ariel2000. Finds of Late Sasanian and Early Muslim Drahams in Historical Palestine.

Atiqot 40:139–148.

Shai, A.2003. The Fate of the Deserted Arab Villages in the Six-Day War. Kathedra

105:151–170.

342 TALIA SHAY

Shay, T.1989. Israeli Archaeology—Ideology and Practice. Antiquity 63(241):768–772.

1992. The Living and the Dead: the Dilemma of Excavating Graves in Israel. InThe Limitations of Archaeological Knowledge, edited by T. Shay and J.Clottes, pp. 67–75. Eraul 49, Liege.

1993. The Ideational Basis of Israeli Archaeology. In Actes du XII Congres Interna-tional des Sciences Prehistoriques et Protohistoriques, edited by J. Pavul, pp. 436–439. Institut Archeologique de l’Academie Slovaque des Sciences, Bratislava.

2004. The Visual Manifestation of the Chalcolithic Religion. Acts of the XIVthUISPP Congress, University of Liege, Belgium. BAR International Series1303:299–302.

2005. Teaching Archaeological Sources as Alternative History. In The 12th Con-gress of the Panafrican Archaeological Association for Prehistory and RelatedStudies, Botswana.

Shay, T, Y. Menschenfreund, and M. Abu-Hussein1999. Hiking Activities of Arab Youth Movements, p. 23. Borders and Beyond.

The Annual Conference of the Israeli Anthropological Association. Nazareth.

Shtal, A.1981. How were the East European Jews Educated to Love Nature and Excur-

sions. Ha-Hevra Lehaganat Hateva, 1–14 (Hebrew).

Sim, S. (editor)2005. The Routledge Companion to Postmodernism. Routledge, London.

Singer, I.2005. The Bible as History. Shapira, Anita. The Bible and the Israeli Identity.

Magnes, Jerusalem, 159–167.

Smith, C., and H. Bruke2005. Becoming Binford. Public Archaeology 4:35–49.

Talaly, L.E.2004. The Past as Commodity. Public Archaeology 3:205–216.

Turner, V.1974. Dramas, Fields and Metaphors. Cornell University Press, Ithaca.

Ucko, P.J.1995. Introduction. In Theory in Archaeology, edited by P.J. Ucko, pp. 1–28.

Routledge, New York.

Werbner, R.1996. Multiple Identities, Plural Arenas. In Postcolonial in Africa, edited by R.

Werbner, and T. Ranger, pp. 1–27. Zed, London.


an ethnography of teaching archaeology

Documents