Hostname: page-component-89b8bd64d-46n74 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-05-08T06:06:39.742Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

‘Violent care’? A response to Lynn Meskell and Trinidad Rico

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  13 November 2020

Monika Stobiecka
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content. As you have access to this content, full HTML content is provided on this page. A PDF of this content is also available in through the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

Information

Type
Discussion
Information
Archaeological Dialogues , Volume 27 , Issue 2 , December 2020 , pp. 128 - 134
Check for updates
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BY
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2020. Published by Cambridge University Press.

I would like to thank Lynn Meskell and Trinidad Rico for their thoughtful, reflection-provoking and articulate responses, in which they have expanded on a number of interesting points that I had not fully addressed or had only partly included in my original piece. They directed my attention to various aspects of critical heritage studies, as well as many challenges that emerge for heritage in the 21st century. This response will be divided into four sections addressing their comments: (1) the status of the replica, (2) Syria and the Syrians, (3) digital archeology and its academic setting, (4) ‘archaeodiplomacy’. In place of offering a conclusion to the discussion, I hope to mark possible departure points for future reflection on critical heritage studies.

Lynn Meskell writes about the display of the replica in Florence – the ‘dangerous and delicate work of art’ (p. 127) that cannot be touched and interacted with was placed next to Renaissance masterpieces. The list of funding institutions could be seen as a way to legitimize the status of the replica as an artwork. In their definition of artwork, Arthur Danto and Hans Belting indeed suggest that this status must be given by institutions (museums, galleries, academics, art critics). However, this particular ‘masterpiece’ looks rather odd within the context of politically engaged and activist art created today. Standing, rather, as a technological ‘workshop exercise’, not really informed by artistic inquiry, it does not have the agentive and emancipatory value characteristic of many projects related to heritage and conflict in Syria. Art historian Chad Elias (2019) discusses the artworks by Moreshin Allahyari, Nora Al-Badri and Jan Nikolai Nelles. In her long-term Digital Colonialism project, Allahyari often refers to the Syrian arch, and uses the same technologies as the Institute for Digital Archaeology, but her artistic practice is informed by emphatic and sensitizing inquiries, by questions concerning the ownership of heritage, which is apparently openly accessible.

For Allahyari,

a replica of Palmyra’s arch in Trafalgar Square becomes a symptom of violent care: the unique and precious object that is rescued when so much is deemed disposable. For any Western institution to focus on the reconstruction of the rare and special while other Western institutions have wrought the destruction of the everyday is violent care (Allahyari Reference Allahyari2019, my emphasis).

In Digital Colonialism, Allahyari also refers to the case of Nefertiti’s bust displayed in the Neues Museum. This artefact happened to be the leading theme for another artistic intervention at the intersection of heritage and post-colonial aftermaths. Nora Al-Badri and Jan Nikolai Nelles’s ‘digital piracy’ (Elias Reference Elias2019, 690) of Nefertiti’s sculpture was another attempt to show how universal heritage is copyrighted by Western institutions. Artists entered the room with the precious artefact and scanned it. With ‘The other Nefertiti’, Al-Badri and Nelles wanted to ‘activate the artefact, inspire a critical re-assessment of today’s conditions and to overcome the colonial notion of possession in Germany’.Footnote 1

These projects unveil the messiness of heritage and its problematic entanglements. In confrontation with these engaged artworks, how can the copy be seen as an artwork? If we uphold its status as an artwork, then I postulate that the Syrian arch replica is like the works from 19th-century workshops, producing polished, sanitized, perfect copies of antiquity; or it might be an artwork if we relate it to surrealism: out of space, out of context, using military metaphors and showing obscure interest in war and violence (Taussig Reference Taussig2007; Elias Reference Elias2012). Finally, it might be an artwork if we consider Las Vegas-style copies of monuments as artworks (cf. Holtorf Reference Holtorf2010).

Trinidad Rico pointed out that I missed Syrian voices in my narrative. I would welcome bibliographic recommendations written from the Syrian perspective. I am well aware that the included press articles from the Syrian Arab News Agency and the Middle East monitor, as well as the quoted and commented paper by Nour A. Munawar (Reference Munawar2017), may not adequately represent the complexity of Syrian viewpoints. Munawar urges that time is crucial to discuss heritage in Syria: ‘The rapid clean-up of and rebuilding plans for damaged Syrian heritage sites could themselves erase the traces and narratives of war and violence, which ultimately ignores the fact that the destruction of heritage can be considered to be part of the lifecycle of any archaeological site’ (Munawar Reference Munawar, Çakmak and Özçelik2019, 142).

This brings me to a broader question related to neo-colonial issues emerging from this study: what is overlooked by global academia? There may well be papers presenting insider views from Syria, but they are not published in anglophone journals quickly enough. The causes lie in the structure of academia under the neo-capitalist regimes. Where a native speaker can (simply) write a paper, others deal with translation and/or proofreading, often requiring time-consuming procedures and without adequate financial support. As a result, papers are published two or three years after they are ready, when their contents may no longer seem relevant or novel. It comes rather as a surprise than as frustration that those realities are not taken into account.

This issue could be stretched also to the discussion on digital archaeology. The neo-capitalist (and fast-science – Cunningham and MacEachern Reference Cunningham and MacEachern2016) framework under which digital labs are funded and supported shapes the managerial approach accurately diagnosed by Rico (Reference Rico, Silverman, Waterton and Watson2017). I sympathize with her recognition of, and myself support, approaches like punk archaeology in digital practice (Caraher Reference Caraher2019). Similar conclusions about the practices of saving heritage with digital methods are presented by Meskell. Agreeing with Caraher, I would emphasize that ‘digitization is an alternative to destruction in the context of field practice, but it is not the same as the creation of meaningful pasts’ (Caraher Reference Caraher2019, 379). Rico’s accurate and sober diagnosis and Meskell’s erudite reference to the history of archaeology bring me to another issue that emerges on the margins of our discussion: the way digital archaeology is sponsored by universities, national funds, grant programmes and crowdsourcing dictates its fast pace. Given the often immediate results of digital practices, funding agendas accelerate further development of digital works. Creating more and more data (as in the case of the Million Image Database that was used to create the model of the arch), speed becomes a priority. Collaboration with an IT department is often more profitable than showing methodological sensibility and well-prepared theoretical framework. This race to produce begins at universities, where students are encouraged to ‘go digital’ without proper preparation in (critical) heritage studies. The recent interest in ‘archaeologies of the heart’ (Supernant et al. Reference Supernant, Baxter, Lyons and Atalay2020) and ‘the archaeology of care’ (Caraher Reference Caraher2019; Oma Reference Oma and Pilaar-Birch2018) reflects the imbalance that has appeared among the different speeds of research in academia.

Finally, both Meskell and Rico situate their comments within ongoing debates over the political position of heritage scholars. Rico recommends the grounded and well-argued research path and Meskell warns about excessive writing on Palmyra that may end up ‘participating in the same discourses that are being critiqued’ (p. 128). While I agree that it is difficult to navigate the slippery ground of current politics, I also recognize the need for looking at things closely and from different perspectives and backgrounds. Facing the war of images and war of objects, we should not be passive. I acknowledge the position of scholars coming from imperial countries, as I am well aware of the possible attitudes represented by researchers from disturbing borderlands (perfectly exemplified by Eastern Europe, which has experienced multiple forms of cultural coding, for being both a perpetrator and a victim throughout the centuries). Nevertheless, I think that resistance informed by sensitizing questions and deep self-reflection might be a way to avoid ‘flourishing around Palmyra’. In Polish, we have the word współczucie, where współ- means ‘with’, and czucie is ‘to feel’, ‘feeling’. The English translation would be ‘compassion’ or ‘empathy’, but can we rather ‘feel with’?

This kind of attitude is easily traced in contemporary art. In 2017, the Polish artist Agnieszka Kalinowska presented an artwork, Heavy Water (Reference Stobiecka and WestmontStobiecka, forthcoming). It consisted of dozens of clay vessels decorated with the ‘migrant sign’ (a symbol known from the warning signs installed at the borders of the US and Mexico between 1987 and 1990). The jugs were replicas of water vessels found during archaeological excavations in Ethiopia, Afghanistan and Syria. Referring to archaeological studies, Kalinowska showed the current migration crisis as part of a pattern in human history.Footnote 2 The work addressed Polish attitudes towards Syrian immigrants, which at the time were being widely discussed in the international media (Leszczyński Reference Leszczyński2015). The Polish government refused to take in refugees from Syria. Kalinowska’s idea was that people would take the vessels home. In this sense, she wanted to go against state politics and make a symbolic gesture about welcoming the artefacts that represented refugees.

Perhaps, then, it should be mainly artists who discuss the tragedies of war and speculate on how the Palmyrene arch’s replica should be done? By creating a rupture, disarticulating and repurposing (Bailey Reference Bailey2018), maybe they can find a new way for digital archaeology and heritage studies.

Footnotes

1 See the project website at https://aksioma.org/the.other.nefertiti (accessed 1 August 2020).

2 Another example that might be mentioned is the work of Ai Weiwei, who presented a grand exhibition at the Kunstpalast in Düsseldorf, where he displayed Odyssey, a contemporary migrant story. Vases and walls were filled with terrifying scenes of migrating families, groups and individuals.

References

Allahyari, M., 2019: Physical tactics for digital colonialism, performance–lecture at New Museum, 28 February 2019, at https://medium.com/@morehshin_87856/physical-tactics-for-digital-colonialism-45e8d3fcb2da.Google Scholar
Bailey, D., 2018: Breaking the surface. An art/archaeology of prehistoric architecture, Oxford.Google Scholar
Basulto, D., 2016: How 3D printers can help undo the destruction of ISIS, Washington post, at www.washingtonpost.com/news/innovations/wp/2016/01/07/how-3d-printers-can-help-undo-the-destruction-of-isis/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.d26b0d3badce.Google Scholar
Beale, G., and Reilly, P., 2017: Digital practice as meaning making in archaeology, Internet archaeology 44, at https://doi.org/10.11141/ia.44.13.Google Scholar
Bell, G., 2015: A woman in Arabia. The writings of the queen of the desert, London.Google Scholar
Berggren, A., Dell’Unto, N., Forte, M., Haddow, S., Hodder, I., Issavi, J., Lercari, N., Mazzucato, C., Mickel, A. and Taylor, J.S., 2015: Revisiting reflexive archaeology at Çatalhöyük. Integrating digital and 3D technologies at the trowel’s edge, Antiquity 89 (344), 433–448.Google Scholar
Bhabha, H.K., 1994: The location of culture, London. Google Scholar
Bishara, H., 2019: New Palmyra agreement demonstrates Russia’s continuing soft power influence on Syria, Hyperallergic, at https://hyperallergic.com/530727/new-palmyra-agreement-demonstrates-russias-continuing-soft-power-influence-on-syria.Google Scholar
Brahm, G., 1995: Introduction, in Brahm, G. , Jr and Driscoll, M. (eds), Prosthetic territories. Politics and hypertechnologies, San Francisco and Oxford, 1–2.Google Scholar
Braidotti, R., 1994: Nomadic subjects. Embodiment and sexual difference in contemporary feminist theory, Cambridge. Google Scholar
Braidotti, R., 2006: Transpositions. On nomadic ethics, Cambridge. Google Scholar
Braidotti, R., 2013: The posthuman, Cambridge. Google Scholar
Brown, D., 2007: Te Ahu Hiko. Digital cultural heritage and indigenous objects, people, and environments, in Cameron, F. and Kenderdine, S. (eds), Theorizing digital cultural heritage. A critical discourse, Cambridge, 77–92.Google Scholar
Brown, M., 2016: Palmyra’s Arch of Triumph recreated in Trafalgar Square, The Guardian, at www.theguardian.com/culture/2016/apr/19/palmyras-triumphal-arch-recreated-in-trafalgar-square.Google Scholar
Buchli, V., 2016: An archaeology of the immaterial, London and New York. Google Scholar
Burch, S., 2017: A virtual oasis. Trafalgar Square’s Arch of Palmyra, Archnet-IJAR 11 (3), 58–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cabot, H., 2019: The business of anthropology and the European refugee regime, American ethnologist 46 (3), 261–275.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cameron, F., 2007: Beyond the cult of the replicant. Museums and historical digital objects. Traditional concerns, new discourses, in Cameron, F. and Kenderdine, S. (eds), Theorizing digital cultural heritage. A critical discourse, Cambridge, 49–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Caraher, W., 2019: Slow archaeology, punk archaeology, and the ‘archaeology of care’, European journal of archaeology 22 (3), 372–385.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carter, M., 2019: The making of digital archaeological thought, Journal of computer applications in archaeology (in press).Google Scholar
Cassibry, K., 2018: Reception of the Roman arch monument, American journal of archaeology 122 (2), 245–275.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chakrabarty, D., Wickramasinghe, N., Robbe, K., Modest, W. and Mark, E., 2016: Minor archives, meta histories. GLASS faculty roundtable, Práticas da história, journal on theory, historiography and uses of the past 3, 93–124.Google Scholar
Chambers, I., and Terranova, T., 2014: Introduction. Inflections of technoculture. Biodigital media, postcolonial theory and feminism, Anglistica AION 18 (2), 1–18.Google Scholar
Colomer, L., 2017: Heritage on the move. Cross-cultural heritage as a response to globalisation, mobilities and multiple migrations, International journal of heritage studies 23 (10), 913–927.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cooper, A., and Green, C., 2016: Embracing the complexities of ‘big data’ in archaeology. The case of the English Landscape and Identities Project, Journal of archaeological methods and theory 23, 271–304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coppelstone, T., and Dunne, D., 2017: Digital media, creativity, narrative structure and heritage, Internet archaeology 44, at https://doi.org/10.11141/ia.44.2.Google Scholar
Coronil, F., 2007: After empire. Reflections on imperialism from the Américas, in Stoler, A.L., McGranahan, C. and Perdue, P.C. (eds), Imperial formations, Santa Fe, 241–271.Google Scholar
Cunliffe, E., 2016: Should we 3D print a new Palmyra?, The conversation, 31 March 2016, at https://theconversation.com/should-we-3d-print-a-new-palmyra-57014.Google Scholar
Cunningham, J.J., and MacEachern, S., 2016: Ethnoarchaeology as slow science, World archaeology 48 (5), 628–641.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dallas, C., 2015: Curating archaeological knowledge in the digital continuum. From practice to infrastructure, Open archaeology 1, 176–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dawson, I., and Reilly, P., 2019: Messy assemblages, residuality and recursion within a phygital nexus, Epoiesen, at http://dx.doi.org/10.22215/epoiesen/2019.4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DeSilvey, C., 2017: Curated decay. Heritage beyond saving, Minneapolis and London. Google Scholar
DeSilvey, C., and Harrison, R., 2020: Anticipating loss. Rethinking endangerment in heritage futures, International journal of heritage studies 26 (1), at https://doi.org/10.1080/13527258.2019.1644530.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dietler, M., 2005: The archaeology of colonization and the colonization of archaeology. Theoretical challenges from an ancient Mediterranean colonial encounter, in Stein, G. (ed.), The archaeology of colonial encounters. Comparative perspectives, Santa Fe, 33–68.Google Scholar
Future Foundation, Dubai, 2017: Dubai Future Foundation’s reconstructed Palmyra arch wins prestigious award at University of Oxford, at www.dubaifuture.gov.ae/dubai-future-foundations-reconstructed-palmyra-arch-wins-prestigious-award-at-university-of-oxford.Google Scholar
Earl, G., 2013: Modelling in archaeology. Computer graphic and other digital pasts, Perspectives on science 21 (2), 226–244.Google Scholar
Edgeworth, M., 2015: From spadework to screenwork. New forms of archaeological discovery in digital space, in Carusi, A., Hoel, A.S., Webmoor, T. and Woolgar, S. (eds), Visualization in the age of computerization, London and New York, 40–58.Google Scholar
Elcheikh, Z., 2019: Palmyra. A story of ruins, struggle(s) and beyond, Chronos. Revue d’histoire de l’universite de Balamand 39, 105–125.Google Scholar
Elias, A., 2012: Camouflage and surrealism, International journal of the humanities 24, 1–25.Google Scholar
Elias, C., 2019: Whose digital heritage?, Third text 33 (6), 687–707.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Exell, K., and Rico, T., 2013: ‘There is no heritage in Qatar’. Orientalism, colonialism and other problematic histories, World archaeology 45 (4), at https://doi.org/10.1080/00438243.2013.852069.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Exell, K., and Rico, T., 2014: Introduction. (De)constructing Arabian heritage debates, in Exell, K. and Rico, T. (ed.), Cultural heritage in the Arabian peninsula. Debates, discourses and practices, Farnham and Burlington, 1–18.Google Scholar
Favro, D., 2013: To be or not to be in past spaces. Thoughts on Roman immersive reconstructions, in Bond, S. and Houston, S. (eds), Re-presenting the past. Archaeology through image and text, Providence, 151–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Forte, M., 2007: Ecological cybernetics, virtual reality, and virtual heritage, in Cameron, F. and Kenderdine, S. (eds), Theorizing digital cultural heritage. A critical discourse, Cambridge, 389–408.Google Scholar
Forte, M., 2010: Introduction to cyber-archaeology, in Forte, M. (ed.), Cyber-archaeology, Oxford, 9–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Forte, M., 2014: Virtual reality, cyberarchaeology, teleimmersive archaeology, in Remondino, F. and Campana, S. (eds), 3D recording and modelling in archaeology and cultural heritage. Theory and best practices, Oxford, 113–127.Google Scholar
Gilroy, P., 2001: Against race. Imagining political culture beyond the color line, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Gilroy, P., 2004: After empire. Melancholia or convivial culture?, Abingdon.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
González-Ruibal, A., 2019: An archaeology of the contemporary era, Abingdon and New York.Google Scholar
Gunkel, D., 2006: We are Borg. Cyborgs and the subject of communication, Communication theory 10 (3), 332–357.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haraway, D., 1988. Situated knowledges. The science question in feminism and the privilege of partial perspective, Feminist studies 14 (3), 575–599.Google Scholar
Haraway, D., 1991: A cyborg manifesto. Science, technology, and socialist-feminism in the late twentieth century, in D. Haraway, Simians, cyborgs and women. The reinvention of nature, New York, 149–181.Google Scholar
Harmanşah, Ö., 2015: Isis, heritage, and the spectacle of destruction in the global media, Near Eastern archaeology 78 (3), 170–179.Google Scholar
Harrison, R., 2015: Beyond ‘natural’ and ‘cultural’ heritage. Toward an ontological politics of heritage in the age of Anthropocene, Heritage & society 8 (1), 24–42.Google Scholar
Harrison, R., Appelgren, S. and Bohlin, A., 2018: Belonging and belongings. On migrant and nomadic heritages in and for the Anthropocene, in Hamilakis, Y. (ed.), The new nomadic age. Archaeologies of forced and undocumented migration, Sheffield, 209–220.Google Scholar
Holtorf, C., 2006: Can less be more? Heritage in the age of terrorism, Public archaeology 5 (2), 101–109.Google Scholar
Holtorf, C., 2010: From Stonehenge to Las Vegas. Archaeology as popular culture. Walnut Creek, CA.Google Scholar
Holtorf, C., 2013: On pastness. A reconsideration of materiality in archaeological object authenticity, Anthropological quarterly 86 (2), 427–443.Google Scholar
Holtorf, C., 2018: Embracing change. How cultural resilience is increased through cultural heritage, World archaeology, at https://doi.org/10.1080/00438243.2018.1510340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holtorf, C., and Fairclough, G., 2013: ‘The New Heritage and re-shapings of the past’, in González-Ruibal, A., ed., Reclaiming archaeology beyond the tropes of modernity, London, 197–210.Google Scholar
Huggett, J., 2015: A manifesto for an introspective digital archaeology, Open archaeology 1, 86–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huggett, J., 2017: The apparatus of digital archaeology, Internet archaeology 44, at https://doi.org/10.11141/ia.44.7.Google Scholar
Huvila, I., and Huggett, J., 2018: Archaeological practices, knowledge work and digitalisation, Journal of computer applications in archaeology 1 (1), 88–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Isakhan, B., and Meskell, L., 2019: UNESCO’s project to ‘Revive the Spirit of Mosul’. Iraqi and Syrian opinion on heritage reconstruction after the Islamic State, International journal of heritage studies 25 (11), 1189–1204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jalabi, R., 2016: Replica of Syrian arch destroyed by Isis unveiled in New York City, The Guardian, at www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/sep/20/palmyra-arch-syria-new-york.Google Scholar
Jamieson, R.W., 2014: Hacienda ruins as sites of difficult memory in Chimborazo, Ecuador, Journal of social archaeology 14 (2), 224–243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jeffrey, S., 2015: Challenging heritage visualisation. Beauty, aura and democratisation, Open archaeology 1, 144–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jones, I.W.N., and Levy, T.E., 2018: Cyber-archaeology and grand narratives. Where do we currently stand?, in Levy, T.E. and Jones, I.W.N. (eds), Cyber-archaeology and grand narratives. Digital technology and deep-time perspectives on culture change in the Middle East, at https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-65693-9.Google Scholar
Jones, S., 2017: Wrestling with the social value of heritage. Problems, dilemmas and opportunities, Journal of community archaeology & heritage 4 (1), 21–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jones, S., Jeffrey, S., Maxwell, M., Hale, A. and Jones, C., 2017: 3D heritage visualisation and the negotiation of authenticity. The ACCORD project, International journal of heritage studies 24 (4), 333–353.Google Scholar
Joyce, R.A., and Gillespie, S.D., 2015: Making things out of objects that move, in Joyce, R.A. and Gillespie, S.D. (eds), Things in motion. Object itineraries in anthropological practice, Santa Fe, 3–20.Google Scholar
Kamash, Z., 2017: ‘Postcard to Palmyra’. Bringing the public into debates over post-conflict reconstruction in the Middle East, World archaeology 49 (5), 608–622.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Karmelek, M., 2015: ‘The new monument men outsmart ISIS, Newsweek, at www.newsweek.com/2015/11/20/institute-digital-archaeology-preserves-cultural-heritage-middle-east-392732.html.Google Scholar
Khunti, R., 2018: The problem with printing Palmyra. Exploring the ethics of using 3D printing technology to reconstruct heritage, Studies in digital heritage 2 (1), 1–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kishkovsky, S., 2019: Russia and Syria sign agreement to restore ancient city of Palmyra, Art newspaper, at https://www.theartnewspaper.com/news/russia-and-syria-sign-agreement-to-restore-ancient-city-of-palmyra?fbclid=IwAR2lZa-Hcn6ePUAeAb94Zg8SMXQJq2_6wEWE2sxWAUch5k_ZZSEMac9nePE.Google Scholar
Latour, B., 2002: What is iconoclash? Or is there a world beyond the image wars?, in Latour, B. and Weibel, P. (eds), Iconoclash. Image wars in science, religion and art, Cambridge, 14–37.Google Scholar
Lercari, N., Shulze, J., Wendrich, W., Porter, B., Burton, M. and Levy, T.E., 2016: 3-D digital preservation of at-risk global cultural heritage, in Catalano, C.E. and De Luca, L. (eds), EUROGRAPHICS workshop on graphics and cultural heritage, at https://doi.org/10.2312/gch.20161395.Google Scholar
Leszczyński, A., 2015: Poles don’t want immigrants. They don’t understand them, don’t like them, The Guardian, 2 July 2015, at www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jul/02/poles-dont-want-immigrants-they-dont-understand-them-dont-like-them.Google Scholar
Levy, T.E., Smith, N.G., Najjar, M., DeFanti, T.A., Yu-Min Lin, A. and Kuester, F., 2012: Cyber-archaeology in the Holy Land. The future of the past, San Diego. Google Scholar
Liebmann, M., 2013: Parsing hybridity. Archaeologies of amalgamation in seventeenth-century New Mexico, in Card, J.J. (ed.), The archaeology of hybrid material culture, Carbondale, 25–49.Google Scholar
Ma, G., Li, W. and Yang, J., 2018: State-of-the-art of 3D printing technology of cementitious material. An emerging technique for construction, Science China 61 (4), 475–495.Google Scholar
Meskell, L.M., 2018: A future in ruins. UNESCO, world heritage, and the dream of peace, New York.Google Scholar
Meskell, L.M., 2020: Imperialism, internationalism, and archaeology in the un/making of the Middle East, American anthropologist 122 (3), 554–567.Google Scholar
Mignolo, W., 2007: Coloniality of power and de-colonial thinking, Cultural studies 21 (2–3), 155–167.Google Scholar
Moraru, C., 2015: Reading for the planet. Toward a geomethodology, Ann Arbor.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morgan, C., and Pallascio, P.M., 2015: Digital media, participatory culture, and difficult heritage. Online remediation and the trans-Atlantic slave trade, Journal of African diaspora archaeology and heritage 4 (3), 260–278.Google Scholar
Mulder, S., 2016: Evliyalarin ve sultanlarin türbeleri (Shrines for saints and sultans. On the destruction of local heritage sites by ISIS), Aktüel arkeoloji (Archaeology today), June 2016, 92–99.Google Scholar
Mulder, S., 2020 (forthcoming): War and recovery, in Insoll, T., Fenwick, C. and Walker, B. (eds), The Oxford handbook of Islamic archaeology, Oxford. Google Scholar
Munawar, N.A., 2017: Reconstructing cultural heritage in conflict zones. Should Palmyra be rebuilt?, Ex novo journal of archaeology 2, 33–48.Google Scholar
Munawar, N.A., 2019: Cultural heritage and the Arab Spring. A review of (inter)national efforts to safeguard heritage under fire, in Çakmak, C. and Özçelik, A.O. (eds), The world community and the Arab Spring, Cham, 83–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nader, L., 1997: The phantom factor. Impact of the Cold War on anthropology, in Chomsky, N., Barsamian, D. and Zinn, H. (eds), The Cold War and the university. Toward an intellectual history of the postwar years, New York, 107–146.Google Scholar
Olterman, P., 2016: Berlin museums’ refugee guides scheme fosters meeting of minds, The Guardian, at www.theguardian.com/world/2016/feb/27/berlin-museums-refugee-guides-scheme-fosters-meeting-of-minds.Google Scholar
Oma, K.A., 2018: Making space from the position of duty of care. Early Bronze Age human–sheep entanglements in Norway, in Pilaar-Birch, S. (ed.), Multispecies archaeology, New York, 214–249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Perry, S., 2018: Why are heritage interpreters voiceless at the trowel’s edge? A plea for rewriting the archaeological workflow, Advances in archaeological practice 6 (3), 212–227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Plets, G., 2017: Violins and trowels for Palmyra. Post-conflict heritage politics, Anthropology today 33 (4), 18–22.Google Scholar
Richardson, L.-J., and Lindgren, S., 2017: Online tribes and digital authority. What can social theory bring to digital archaeology?, Open archaeology 3, 139–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rico, T., 2008: Negative heritage. The place of conflict in world heritage, Conservation and management of archaeological sites 10 (4), 344–352.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rico, T., 2014a: Islamophobia and the location of heritage debates in the Arabian peninsula, in Exell, K. and Rico, T. (eds), Cultural heritage in the Arabian peninsula. Debates, discourses and practices, Farnham and Burlington, 19–32.Google Scholar
Rico, T., 2014b: The limits of a ‘heritage at risk’ framework. The construction of post-disaster cultural heritage in Banda Aceh, Indonesia, Journal of social archaeology 14 (2), 157–176.Google Scholar
Rico, T., 2015: Heritage at risk. The authority and autonomy of a dominant preservation framework, in Lafrenz-Samuels, K. and Rico, T. (eds), Heritage keywords. Rhetoric and redescription in cultural heritage, Boulder, CO, 147–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rico, T., 2016: Constructing destruction. Heritage narratives in the tsunami city, New York and London.Google Scholar
Rico, T., 2017: Technology, technocracy, and the promise of ‘alternative’ heritage values, in Silverman, H., Waterton, E. and Watson, S. (eds), Heritage in action, New York, 217–230.Google Scholar
Rico, T., 2020: Reclaiming post-disaster narratives of loss in Indonesia, International journal of heritage studies 26 (1), 8–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roosevelt, C.R., Cobb, P., Moss, E., Olson, B.R. and Ünlüsoy, S., 2015: Excavation is destruction digitization. Advances in archaeological practice, Journal of field archaeology 40 (3), 325–346.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Saunders, S., 2017: 3D printing to preserve heritage. Replica of Palmyra arch draws millions of visitors at fourth installation stop in Arona, Italy, at https://3dprint.com/179081/palmyra-arch-in-italy.Google Scholar
Schnapp, A., 1996: The discovery of the past. The origins of archaeology, London. Google Scholar
Shanks, M., 1998: The life of an artifact in an interpretive archaeology, Fennoscandia archaeologica 15, 15–31.Google Scholar
Shanks, M., 2012: The archaeological imagination, Walnut Creek, CA. Google Scholar
Shome, R., 1996: Postcolonial interventions in the rhetorical canon. An ‘other’ view, Communication theory 6 (1), 40–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Simanowski, R., 2016: Data love. The seduction and betrayal of digital technologies, New York.Google Scholar
Solli, B., Burström, M., Domanska, E., Edgeworth, M., González-Ruibal, A., Holtorf, C., Lucas, G., Oestigaard, T., Smith, L. and Witmore, C., 2011: Some reflections on heritage and archaeology in the Anthropocene, Norwegian archaeological review 44 (1), 40–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spivak, G.C., 2013: An aesthetic education in the era of globalization, Cambridge and London. Google Scholar
Stiegler, B., 2016: Automatic society. The future of work, Vol. 1, trans. D. Ross, Malden and Cambridge.Google Scholar
Stingl, A.I., 2016: The digital coloniality of power. Epistemic disobedience in the social sciences and the legitimacy of the digital age, Lanham, Boulder, CO, New York and London. Google Scholar
Stobiecka, M., forthcoming: Towards a critical archeological museum, in Westmont, V.C. (ed.), Critical public archaeology.Google Scholar
Stone, L., 2019: Russia and Syria announce joint project to restore ancient city of Palmyra, Architect’s newspaper, at https://archpaper.com/2019/12/russia-syria-restore-palmyra.Google Scholar
Supernant, K., Baxter, E., Lyons, N. and Atalay, S., 2020: Archaeologies of the heart, Cham.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Taussig, M., 2007: Zoology, magic, and surrealism in the War on Terror, Critical inquiry 34, 99–116.Google Scholar
Thompson, E., 2016: Possession. The curious history of private collectors from antiquity to the present, New Haven, CT and London.Google Scholar
Thompson, E.L., 2018: Recreating the past in our own image. Contemporary artists’ reactions to the digitization of threatened cultural heritage sites in the Middle East, Future anterior. Journal of historic preservation, history, theory, and criticism 15 (1), 45–56.Google Scholar
Thompson, E.L., 2017: Legal and ethical considerations for digital recreations of cultural heritage, Chapman law review 20 (1), 153–176.Google Scholar
Ward-Perkins, J.B., 1992: Roman imperial architecture, New Haven, CT and London.Google Scholar
Wilson, E., and Michalak, K. (eds), 2015: Open source archaeology. Ethics and practice, Warsaw and Boston. Google Scholar
Young, R.J.C., 1995: Colonial desire. Hybridity in theory, culture, and race, London. Google Scholar