The discussion on archaeological ethics and archaeology after instances of conflict has been strongly encouraged in recent years because political and social tension has been rising worldwide. This call to discuss the pillars, concepts and the overall arrangement of archaeological ethics related to ongoing or recent conflicts is very welcome. But while we are encouraged by the call to discuss post-conflict ethics on a global scale, the current map of military conflicts forces us to address Europe. This is because Ukraine, a country facing conflict as we write, and Ukrainian archaeology have shown a clear trend towards integration with Europe and European archaeology, in the same way that Russian archaeology has. This integration is evident in the selection of the Ukrainian archaeologist Fedir Androshchuk for the European Association of Archaeologists (EAA) Executive board and the discussion of the complex overview of Ukrainian archaeology during the war in the European Archaeologist (TEA) Newsletter (Shydlovskyi, Telizhenko and Ivakin Reference Shydlovskyi, Telizhenko and Ivakin2022).

In this reaction, we agree with Newson and Young (Reference Newson and Young2022, 157) that conflict and post-conflict are dynamic concepts with no identifiable boundaries; however, we believe that post-conflict archaeology is also part of a reaction to conflict, and it should be considered within a single framework that includes conflict itself. This adds another facet to the discussion on archaeological ethics in post-conflict zones. While in their paper Newson and Young bring the concepts of sustainability, hearing and involvement of local communities to the table, our question would be how to synchronize these with the standards of academic integrity.

Archaeology is a cultural, political (Hamilakis and Duke Reference Hamilakis and Duke2007) and economic agent (as was shown in Meskell Reference Meskell, Meskell and Pels2005 and Winter Reference Winter2007). Moreover, archaeology implements itself through specific results – scientific research, publication, discussion and knowledge. In a post-conflict environment, however, archaeology might be performed by actors who (willingly or not) legitimate the conflict itself. Applying the holistic ethic approach introduced in healthcare practices some decades ago (Keegan and Keegan Reference Keegan and Keegan1992), one cannot ignore the unfair and unjust igniting of a military conflict by any government or terroristic entity while accepting archaeological research, which is institutionalized through governmental academic institutions of the potential culprit in the conflict. Even though, in some cases, this unavoidably leads to the complicated question of defining a culprit, there are examples where the answer is fairly straightforward. In our opinion, it is essential that such transparent issues form a precedent where archaeological ethics present a just and clear position that follows an ethical code.

Almost every conflict exposes clashing narratives, which often search for justification in the past. The Israel–Palestinian tensions are probably the most studied and emblematic (Assi Reference Assi2012; Kisler Reference Kisler2022; Silberman Reference Silberman1982), and while structurally similar, but very different in essence, conflicts of narratives affect cultural heritage in contested territories in very different ways, such as in confrontations along the Turkey–Syria border (Lostal and Cunlife Reference Lostal and Cunliffe2016), Azerbaijani–Armenian war (Dragadze Reference Dragadze1989), Iranian isolation (Dezhamkhooy et al. Reference Dezhamkhooy, Papoli-Yazdi and Roustaeeyanfard2019), the conflict between Kosovo and Serbia (Defreese Reference Defreese2009), or the confrontation in the Transnistria region of Moldova (King Reference King2000). The logic of ethical ambivalence leads to the equalization of scientific efforts and projects and the support of narratives of conflict. Sometimes, even rescue projects designed to protect cultural heritage can be used as a legitimization of military presence.

For example, the legitimation of conflict can be illustrated by the recent heritage projects in Syria, where Russia is taking the lead (al-Azm Reference al-Azm, Newson and Young2017; Al Hassan Reference Al Hassan, Newson and Young2017; Plets Reference Plets2017). The results of these projects legitimize the Russian presence in the region among scholars and the non-scientific public, even though it is clear that such a presence is due to the very nature of the conflicts in the region. Therefore, the acceptance of presence of Russian scholars there leads to the approval not just of their scientific work but also of Russia’s political practices. This is even more outrageous since Russian scholars in Syria have conducted a series of projects on cultural heritage preservation and reconstruction (Belal and Shcherbina Reference Belal and Shcherbina2019).

Thus, the concept of post-conflict curation of archaeological heritage cannot depend on the assumption of ‘equal guilt of the participants in the conflict’. In a situation of direct aggression, this assumption is far from ethical and aligns more with the aggressor’s narrative. Archaeology is not above the fight; it is directly involved in legitimizing competitive national, imperial and religious projects (Kohl Reference Kohl1998). The claims made by aggressors are often supported by references to symbols derived from the archaeological heritage of the disputed territory (Trigger Reference Trigger1984). A conflict poses an ethical choice and not taking a side is a choice in itself (Steinberger Reference Steinberger1990).

The recent Convention on Offences relating to Cultural Property (Council of Europe Treaty Series (CETS) No. 221; also known as Nicosia Convention; Bieczyński Reference Bieczyński2017; Oriolo Reference Oriolo2022) clearly speaks out against the legitimation and use of cultural heritage artefacts in a way that is offensive, unjust and/or illicit. One of main goals of this statement is to prevent the financial support of worldwide terrorism through the monetization of cultural heritage and related practices. Since Russia has been declared a state sponsor of terrorism (Almqvist Reference Almqvist2022), its participation in archaeological practices and governmental support of archaeological research also contributes to the latter. The acceptance of such participation – in the form of research projects, publications, etc. – on an international level is, thus, nothing more than the legitimation of the whole set of practices performed by the Russian government.

Another case involving the relation of archaeological practices to the legitimation of conflict is the creation of Russian narratives concerning Ukraine and archaeological practices on Ukrainian territories. Even before the actual start of the Russian–Ukrainian war in 2014, archaeologists from Russia would often describe Ukrainian territory as a ‘south-western area of CIS [Commonwealth of Independent States] territory’ or ‘the territory of USSR’ (Chernykh Reference Chernykh1992; Ryndina Reference Ryndina2009, 10). There have also been references to the demise of Ukrainian archaeology since 1991 (Tunkina Reference Tunkina2011). Even after 2014, Russian scholars have continued conducting research in Crimea (Bocharov 2016; Reference Bocharov2017) and have published their results in journals worldwide, including those affiliated with Scopus or other scientometric databases (Bocharov et al. Reference Bocharov, Atypov, Sitdikov and Fahrutdinov2019; Kazaryan Reference Kazaryan2017; Kirilko Reference Kirilko, Bocharov and Sitdikov2019; Saprykina et al. Reference Saprykina, Khairedinova, Kichanov, Rutkauskas, Belozerova and Kozlenko2022; Volkov Reference Volkov, Bocharov and Sitdikov2015). The acceptance of this research by the international community threatens peace all around the world and is simply indecent. In our opinion, the absence of clear ethical judgments concerning this research has fed into the perception that these lands belong to Russia, and it sanctions imperial narratives shared by Russian governmental museums and institutions (Kishkovsky Reference Kishkovsky2022).

The experience of post-Second World War archaeological heritage provides additional examples in support of this position. After the Second World War, the fieldwork undertaken during the German occupation of Ukraine was published without mentioning their authors or reflecting on their particular contexts (cf. Kotova and Tuboltsev Reference Kotova and Tuboltsev2013; Pasternak Reference Pasternak1948; Sveshnikov Reference Sveshnikov1954). It was only much later that ethical judgments on illegitimate research were argued as necessary (Yanenko Reference Yanenko2016), and their earlier absence has hampered the multi-faceted and multivocal understanding of the archaeological record.

Archaeology is a continuous practice that lasts through pre-conflict, conflict and post-conflict periods and affects the international relationships of independent states, regardless of the outcomes of these conflicts. It is also evident that the absence of ethical reaction to the unjust and illegal actions of any entities (terroristic groups or countries) encourages these entities to proceed with their policy. Given that archaeology and history are essential components of an ideological and political narrative that set a structure of potential conflict and its perception through time (Newson and Young Reference Newson and Young2022), ethical reaction is necessary whenever possible to develop ethical solutions to the issues we face. These solutions should be flexible, dynamic and multivocal, including those affected by the conflict in the first place.