Preserving Heritage in Conflict Zones

Introduction

Archaeological remains in war-tone and conflict zones are always under threat despite being valuable non-renewable resources that present traces of a community’s past (Demoule, 2012). Furthermore, according to Braae (2015), archaeology as a discipline is a form of intervention as well as destruction because, after any excavation made by geo-archaeologists, the process is irreversible. Nonetheless, most of the activities carried out by geo-archaeologists aim at preserving the past events for the present and the future generation (Elia, 1997). In fact, according to Holtorf (2010), most archaeological heritage management organizations in Europe are majorly concerned with conserving and preserving the sites. This research proposal paves the way for research on the role of geo-archaeologists in preserving the heritage of the previously war-torn Anuradhapura, in Sri Lanka, as well as their overall role in heritage management.

Background of the Study

After the First and Second World Wars, environmentalists and other world leaders convened the first international conventions whose agendas were the protection of archaeological heritage. According to Demoule (2012), the conventions were held at times of rapid economic development, marked by destruction of archaeological sites. Thus, there was a need for the international community to intervene. Consequently, the first concession, the Venice Charter of 1964, provided a guideline and point of reference for heritage management and conservation and led to the formation of the International Council on monuments and sites (ICOMOS, 1965). However, based on the assertions by Holtorf (2010), the charter did not have any significant coverage of archaeology, except for a short article related to archaeological excavations. In 1990, the International Committee on Archaeological Heritage Management (ICAHM) came up with the Lausanne Charter, which was specifically dedicated to archaeological heritage management and was the first international document dealing specifically with heritage management. Since then, the discourse on heritage conservation and preservation has changed, with global activists being keen to point out any laxity on heritage conservation from every part of the world. Geo-archaeologists are considered important professionals responsible for preserving the authenticity of a heritage. According to Braae (2015), authenticity here means “being true or real” and has largely been used in explaining the role of geo-archaeologists. Nonetheless, the concept of authenticity has been used since time immemorial and continues to be a subject of debate among geologists and other scholars (Myrberg, 2004). For instance, during the emergence of restoration movements concerned with monuments and buildings that emerged in the 18th and 19th Centuries, authenticity was conceptualized as the materiality of an object is unique and original (Odegaard & Cassman, 2014). Similarly, Viollet-le-Duc (1875) observed how scholars such as Eugene Emmanuel proposed a systematic approach to the concept and a critical analysis of the architectural grammar to ensure their real meanings. According to Viollet-le-Duc (1990), originality resulted from re-establishing a structure and making it exist in a state that may have never been achieved before. However, according to some critics of Viollet-le-Duc such as John Ruskin (Ruskin, 1904), time is the most important agent of preservation, and thus the glory and beauty of a people’s heritage can be seen through its age and the marks it has left behind over time.

Regardless of the non-consensual views of various scholars, an underlining aspect exuded by each side of the discourse is the innate value of materials and objects. Ideally, this continues to shape the discourse on archaeological heritage, maybe because according to (Willems 2014), authenticity relates to power and authority. While there may be different regimes and types of value conferred by the authority of various institutions, an underlying fact is that the authenticity of any archaeological remains lies in the quality of the materials. Therefore, there has been a debate on the role of geo-archaeologists; whether they are supposed to preserve and conserve the heritage or reconstruct and restore the heritage. Furthermore, based on the concessions made at the World Heritage Conventions, any modifications made on the heritage must be clearly distinguished from the old, and this role is to be performed by geo-archaeologists (UNESCO, 2017). While struggling to preserve the authenticity of community heritage, current geo-archaeologists have met challenges with securing the continuity of the site’s function (Poulios 2010). Preserving continuity is especially important because, according to Poulios (2010), the change and continuity of the site define the living heritage’s value. For example, in the case of Norway’s Hamar Cathedral, issues emerged regarding the concept of living heritage. The current ruins, which were once the seat of the catholic diocese of Hamar, are the remnants of what was considered Eastern Norway’s religious center (Holmebakk, 2018). Thus the main aim of the current study is to investigate the role of geo-archaeologists in conserving South Asian heritage. In doing so, the study will be situated in the context of preserving heritage within conflict environments, with specific reference to Sri Lanka’s Anuradhapura.

Research Aim

To investigate the role of geo-archaeologists in conserving heritage within the conflict area of Anuradhapura, Sri Lanka

Research Objectives

To explore the role of geo-archaeologists in preserving heritage in Anuradhapura, Sri Lanka

To identify how geo-archaeologists can strengthen their position in heritage management in Anuradhapura, Sri Lanka

To investigate how the practice of geo-archaeology can become more nuanced and integrated with other societal developments in Anuradhapura, Sri Lanka

Research Questions

What is the role of geo-archaeologists in preserving heritage in Anuradhapura Sri Lanka?

How do geo-archaeologists can strengthen their position in heritage management in Anuradhapura, Sri Lanka?

How does the practice of geo-archaeology can become more nuanced and integrated with other societal developments in Anuradhapura, Sri Lanka?

Justification of the Study

The Malta Convention identified public awareness of archaeological heritage as an important aspect of heritage conservation. Consequently, as Willems (2014) argues, there has been an observed interest in geo-archaeology as a result of public access to information and educational activities. Furthermore, improved technology has contributed to a change in how archaeological information is shared. During the major reconstruction and development of Anarudhapura Sri Lanka, various archaeological materials may resurface and cause public curiosity. By evaluating the role of geo-archaeologists in preserving the Anarudhapura people’s heritage, the proposed study will enhance knowledge on how the archaeological materials can be conserved. Furthermore, by evaluating how geo-archaeology can be integrated in the societal developments of Anuradhapura’s people, the proposed study will contribute to an integration of various archaeological materials into the daily lives of the people, make the past available to them, and provide an the local inhabitants an opportunity to visually interact with the traces of their history. This will help in promoting the local identity of the Anuradhapuran people as well as a feeling of collective possessiveness.

Research Methodology

The proposed study will rely on qualitative research design to achieve its objectives. Five randomly selected geo-archaeologists form Anuradhapura Sri Lanka will participate in a semi-structured interview to provide data. The qualitative research design emerges to be the best option for the proposed study because it will allow the researcher to be explorative and use their intuition to gather data (Leavy, 2014). Moreover, Gisselle & Norgaard (2018) observe that qualitative research design will provide the best opportunity for geo-archeologists to explain their own role in conserving the archeological heritage of Anuradhapura.

Data Analysis

The study will apply the thematic analysis method to analyze data, with a specific reference to grounded theory. The grounded theory applies the critical realism approach, whereby realist ontology is combined with constructivist ontology to examine the gathered data (Bloor & Wood, 2006). The use of both constructivist and realists’ ontology implies that the researcher will attempt to understand the phenomena under investigation from the researcher’s experiences and respondents’ perspectives (Leavy, 2014). However, to avoid bias, the researcher will ensure that they are as objective as possible, considering their potential influence on the study outcome (Bloor & Wood, 2006).

Study Sample

The researcher intends to randomly select five geo-archaeologists operating in Anuradhapura Sri Lanka as part of the team working to preserve the city’s heritage after the war. The participant selection will be based on inclusion criteria, whereby all participants must have had significant experience in geo-archaeology, and must be practicing at the time of participation. Ultimately five participants will be recruited. While thematic analysis requires six to fifteen participants to be more effective. Gisselle & Norgaard (2018), the researcher may find it difficult to find over five geo-archaeologists from Anarudhapura to participate in the study. Nevertheless, five participants are considered an adequate number to deliver the sought data.

Ethical Considerations

The researcher aims to seek ethical approval from the University’s ethical committee. To get the approval, the researcher will have to make certain ethical considerations, including protecting the emotional, psychological, and physical well-being of the participants, seeking informed consent from the participants before they participate, and maintaining confidentiality with their personal data. The researcher will also give an opportunity to all the participants to withdraw from the study as per their wish.

References

Bloor, M & Wood, F. 2006. Keywords in Qualitative Methods: A Vocabulary of ResearchConcepts. London: Sage.

Elia, R. J. 1997. Looting, collecting, and the destruction of archaeological resources. Nonrenewable Resources 6 (2): pp. 85–98.

Holtorf, C. 2010. The Presence of Pastness: Themed Environments and Beyond. In: J. Schlehe, M. Uike-Bormann, C. Oesterle & W. Hochbruck (eds) Themed Environments in Transcultural Perspective: pp. 23–40. Bielefeld: Transcript.

Holtorf, C. & Schadla-Hall, T. 1999. Age as artefact: on archaeological authenticity. European Journal of Archaeology 2 (2): pp. 229–47.

Odegaard, N. & Cassman, V. 2014. Authentication and Conservation in Archaeological Science. In: C. Smith (eds) Encyclopedia of Global Archaeology. New York: Springer.

Oseberg Pedersen, F. 2008. Der historien er bygd inne – nye bygningskonstruksjoner over middelalderruiner. Del 1. Unpublished Master thesis. University of Oslo.

Viollet-le-Duc, E. E. 1875. Dictionnaire Raisonné de l‘Architecture Française du X au XVI siècle, VIII. Paris: Ve. A. Morel & Cie. Quoted in English translation: B. Bergdoll & K. Whitehead. 1990. The Foundations of Architecture, Selections from the Dictionnaire Raisonnė. New York: Braziller.

Willems, W. J. H. 2014a. The future of World heritage and the emergence of transnational heritage regimes. Heritage & Society 7 (2): pp. 105–120.

Poulios, I. 2010. Moving Beyond a Values-Based Approach to Heritage Conservation. Conservation and Management of Archaeological Sites 12 (2): pp. 170–185.