Post-Conflict Archaeology and Cultural Heritage: Rebuilding Knowledge, Memory and Community from War-Damaged Material Culture ed. by Paul Newson and Ruth Young (review)

Post-conflict archaeology may be considered a subset of historical archaeology. It includes the archaeology of the twentieth and twenty-first centuries, and while professionals must have the standard theoretical and practical skills to excavate, analyze, and publish their findings, they also must understand how to deal with recent, or even ongoing, destruction of and threats to a people’s cultural heritage. If possible, they should contribute to a community’s post-conflict healing.

This book provides a series of case studies, primarily by academics but also by authors associated with the U.S. Armed Forces and UNESCO, about how they encountered, evaluated, and responded to modern conflict challenges in their archaeological and cultural heritage preservation and protection work. The volume is devoted to past and present conflict experiences in the Middle East, Africa, Asia, Europe, and Latin America and discusses the experiences of the various contributors. Common to all are the authors’ detailed analyses of what worked, what did not, and why. This variety of experiences, regardless of outcome, is the true value of this volume for all who are interested in the topic.

Organizationally, this text is divided into six parts, each of which is devoted to a specific aspect of post-conflict archaeology. Part I (“Conflict: People, Conflict, and Archaeology”) contains both the Introduction and Conclusion to the volume. The editors provide an introduction to the subject of the book and explain the various themes covered in the 14 succeeding contributions. They note that this is the first book to combine discussions and case studies relating to post-conflict archaeology and cultural heritage preservation and protection work, reflecting the newness of the field. The bibliography accompanying this essay illustrates that: a full 50 percent of the 56 publications cited in this chapter have appeared within the past five years with no publication dating earlier than 2002. The chapter ends with a brief Conclusion that outlines the editors’ thoughts on what the essays contribute to the subject and their hope that the volume will encourage further discussion, research, and creative approaches to field work.

Part II (“Legal Frameworks”) is comprised of two essays. The first, by Nada Al Hassan, describes the diplomatic, statutory, and operational actions taken by UNESCO to address cultural destruction in the Middle East and offers examples of how this international organization has been addressing the region’s seemingly endless need for reconstruction. The second paper, by Christopher McDaid, outlines the cultural property protections laid out in the 1954 Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict and two accompanying Protocols and explains how the military forces of various nations try to implement those and related laws, agreements, and, when enacted by a particular government, regulations such as the U.S. Army’s General Order 100 (issued back in 1863). He also suggests ways in which concerned scholars might work with government authorities (primarily the armed forces) to identify and make known the location of archaeological and cultural heritage sites possibly lying in harm’s way so that appropriate safeguards can be part of the uniformed planning effort. Both provide good reminders of the legal tools available.

I agree with McDaid’s suggestion that cooperation between concerned scholars and military forces could help prevent damage to, or destruction of, archaeological and cultural heritage sites in conflict zones. As a former U.S. government employee, however, I must take exception to his suggestion of “shared responsibility.” In my years of service I knew that whether or not a list, sign, or warning existed, the responsibility to honor treaty obligations by a signatory government and the upholding of existing internal regulations of that government’s entities (including armed forces) was the sole responsibility of that government and its representatives—even if existing...