By Tareq Awwad, independent researcher

Over the past few years, Syrian and foreign archaeologists have raised many questions about the next phase in Syria and its reconstruction:

Where is the archaeological heritage from that phase?

What is the role of archaeological heritage in the life of community and how to integrate people with with their heritage?

My paper attempts to add to this discussion by questioning the factors that shaped the relationship between locals and their archaeological heritage from their point of view rather than the official narratives. In addition, I explore an overview of the roots of that relationship and the positive and negative aspects of the locals opinions of archaeological sites, specifically from the time of President Hafez al-Assad’s assumption of power in 1970 until 2011. 

Interviews took place between April and September 2021 in Lebanon and Jordan, with Syrians aged between  30 and 60 from diverse religious, ethnic, and reginal backgrounds. The objective was to focus on their opinions about their relationship with archaeological heritage and the factors that shaped this relationship. It was essential to consider their perceptions as local voices regardless of being displaced  in Lebanon and Jordan. 

Displacement was considered as a factor in order to understand the changes that may occur in people’s perception of their relationship with archaeological sites away from their land, and by being isolated from the political and economic pressures that they may have been exposed to inside Syria. 

According to perceptions of Syrian displaced voices in Lebanon and Jordan, four factors have shaped Syrians’ relationships with archaeological sites in the last 50 years: 

1. Direct factors: 

(a) Political and Economic Factors: This represents the practical and direct aspect of the state’s control over archaeological sites. It manifested through the ideological use of archaeological discoveries to promote Arabism and give it a political legitimacy. These discoveries were also utilised to support development projects with purely political motives, often at the expense of archaeology, leading to a sense of economic exclusion of the locals, and the state’s monopoly of archaeological and heritage sites. 

(b) Legal Factors: This reflects the practical and direct aspect of state ownership of archaeological sites, despite the public’s lack of legal knowledge. However, the law had a direct impact on its implementation. Moreover, the law resulted in a conflict with local communities who lost ownership of their heritage and aggravated feelings of injustice and harm to these communities. 

2. Indirect factors: 

(c) Educational Factors: This represents the theoretical and indirect aspects of state ownership of archaeological sites and heritage in Syria. It was reflected in the process of Arab ideologisation the erasure of diverse local cultures and identities in Syria through official educational curricula (before 2011). 

(d) Religious Factors: This is the only independent factor, without any external interference, as it is an integral part of community culture and daily life. Moreover, it is part of the present practices, so there are no barriers or monopolies on its ownership as part of the people’s culture. 

Furthermore, the Syrian state did not use religious sites for its own purposes. The state did not serve as an intermediary between religious archaeological sites and local communities, allowing for the maintenance of a healthy relationship between them naturally. 

Initial discussion 

These political-economic, legal, and educational factors cannot be separated theoretically, but are rather a combination of factors which intersect with one another as they are closely interconnected, as part of the country’s overall policies and agendas. For this reason, positive factors like religion, which is a part of the local life and practices, is a good example of not separating locals from the archaeological and historical sites. 

Thus, this does not imply that locals should be forced to establish a deep connection with archaeological sites through political, educational, or economic pressures. 

As a result, if these factors are allowed in a way that benefits the local community, through their needs and cultural practices, they will feel a sense of ownership over the archaeological sites, leading to a healthy mutual relationship. 

Acknowledgements 

I am grateful to CBRL for giving me this opportunity to develop this paper, in addition to Dr. Carol Palmer, the former Director of the CBRL for academic guidance. I also appreciate the support from the team at the CBRL Amman Institute: Firas Bqa’in, Rudaina Almomani, Shatha Mubaideen, Sameera Jbour, Osama Dasouqi, and Eman Shahin. 

This paper is a part of a research project I did funded by the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation Fellowship program at Colombia Global Centers|Amman, 2021–2022. 

Tareq Awwad 

A field archaeologist who supervised excavation and survey work in the Levant (Syria, Lebanon, and Jordan). His master’s thesis examined the chronology, stratigraphy, and excavations of F. Thureau-Dangin at the Arslan Tash palace in the early 20th century. 

His area of ​​interest focuses on understanding postcolonial archaeological excavation in the Levant in terms of methods, practices, and the role of local communities—as well as the impact of foreign research institutes and state policies on archaeology. He is undertaking research in public archaeology based on local voices and writing guidebooks on archaeological excavation techniques based on the needs of local archaeologists to support their role. 

The views expressed by our authors on the CBRL blog are not necessarily endorsed by CBRL but are commended as contributing to public debate.