Map of Areas A, B, and C after Oslo II. 

Context in source publication

Context 1

... Seely, 2007). It is not my intent to discuss those issues here; instead, I want to focus on how archaeological practice, the display of artifacts, and archaeological site protection are fractured as a result of law and policy. Under the current geopolitical and legal structure of occupation in Area C as designated by the Oslo Accords, Israeli archaeology in Palestine is accountable to no one. Greenberg and Keinan (2007) suggest that this can be construed as the mobilization of culture for colonialism; opportunities for Israeli academics to carry out ‘‘scientific’’ programs of excavation with very little oversight and no collaboration with Palestinian academics and archaeologists. The present geography of archaeological administration in Palestine, divided into areas A, B, and C, has been deployed as part of the colonial project of alienation, dismemberment, and displacement (De Cesari, 2010c: 7). In the following examination of archaeology under occupation, I use the case study of Herodium to consider the effects of law and policy on the archaeological sites and objects of the Palestinian landscape. From the 16th century onward, Palestinians were subject to Ottoman rule and to the numerous Ottoman laws of 1874, 1884, and 1906, which were aimed at controlling and protecting the archaeological sites and resources of the Empire (Kersel, 2008, 2010). With the dissolution of the Empire in 1917 and the subsequent division of territories under the League of Nations, Great Britain assumed control of the territory we now know as Israel, Palestine, and Jordan under the colonial British Mandate. In one of its first actions, the British Mandate government promulgated an antiquities proclamation noting the importance of cultural heritage in the region. A formal Department of Antiquities and the Antiquities Ordinance of 1929 followed shortly after—these efforts outlined procedures for excavation, interpretation, and museum acquisition, while at the same time regulating the trade in antiquities (for further discussion of the legal legacies in the Middle East, see Keane and Azarov, 2012–2013; Kersel, 2008, 2010). In the period immediately following the establishment of the State of Israel in 1948, the West Bank was annexed as part of Jordan and under the law and jurisdiction of the Hashemite Kingdom, resulting in the bifurcation of cultural heritage oversight. Chatterjee (1993) hypothesizes that post-colonial states do not usually transform the basic institutional arrangement of colonial law and administration, opting instead to keep a continuity of law with the hope of greater stability. In Israel and Jordan (then including the West Bank), the various provisions and regulations of the British Mandate Antiquities Ordinance of 1929 remained in force, ensuring a continuous legal framework for cultural heritage oversight and management. In 1966, Jordan repealed the Mandate Antiquities Ordinance, repla- cing it with Jordanian Temporary Law no. 51 on Antiquities, which maintained many of the earlier Mandate provisions but became the new cultural heritage legislation for the West Bank. From 1967 onward, legally and administratively, the West Bank was subject to an occupying Israeli military government, with military commanders in each area empowered with administrative, governmental, and legislative powers (Cavanaugh, 2002–2003: 942). These powers were executed through a series of Israeli military orders. ‘‘Orders codified Israel’s control of the Occupied Territories far beyond the concern of its military forces,’’ (Gordon, 2008: 31) which resulted in two of these orders directly affecting cultural heritage (nos. 1166 and 1167), well beyond the mandate of the Israeli military. Military order no. 1166 specifically addressed the issue of cultural heritage in the West Bank, augmenting the Jordanian Temporary Law no. 51 on Antiquities of 1966 and authorizing an Israeli appointed Staff Officer (SO) for the West Bank tasked with the management and the protection of cultural heritage sites according to the regulations contained in the original Jordanian Law. In the relative peace of the early 1990s, there were overtures toward a two- state solution, with a phased autonomy and self-rule for Palestine. Intended to be a road map for peace The Israeli-Palestinian Interim Agreement on the West Bank and the Gaza Strip , known more informally as the Oslo Accords, carved the Occupied Territories into a complex mosaic of areas—A, B, and C, allegedly presenting greater opportunities for Palestine to manage and administer some of the archaeological and cultural heritage sites in the West Bank and Gaza. 3 The effects of the partitioning into areas A, B, and C were/are significant (Bshara, 2013: 298). The West Bank was divided into three areas: Area A, under complete Palestinian civil and military control; Area B, under Palestinian civil control but Israeli military control; and Area C, under complete Israeli civil and military control (see Figure 1). 4 In 1995, this division assigned the eight major Palestinian cities (Bethlehem, Hebron, Jenin, Jericho, Nablus, Qalqilya, Ramallah, and Tulkarem) to Area A, representing about 3% of the total area of the West Bank and approximately 26% of the population. Area B, which includes a buffer zone around Area A, covers about 24% of the West Bank but contains the majority of the Palestinian population (70%). Area C encompasses approximately 73% of the West Bank area and includes Palestinian villages (4% of the population) as well as Israeli settlements, outposts, and military installations. Israel retains full responsibility for security and public order as well as for civil issues relating to the area, which included archaeology (Gordon, 2008: 36). After the Wye Agreements of 2000, the distribution changed to Area A at 18%, Area B 22%, and Area C 64%, the current configuration in the West Bank. Originally, the Oslo Accords envisioned a gradual handover of civil and military responsibilities to the Palestinians over the course of 18 months after the inauguration of the Palestinian legislative council, first in Area B and later in Area C. However, to this day, the Israelis have retained full civil and military authority over Area C, the vast majority of Palestine. Archaeologically, the Oslo Accords were the intended replacements for the existing Israeli military orders in Area C, until such time that the Palestinian government passed relevant legislation regarding the protection and preservation of cultural heritage. In 2003, the government of Palestine introduced draft cultural heritage legislation aimed at protecting both the natural and cultural environment. It awaits approval and implementation (see Fahel, 2010; Kersel, 2008; Taha, 2010, 2014). As a result of a complex legal system comprising Ottoman, British Mandatory, Egyptian (the Gaza Strip), Jordanian (the West Bank), Israeli military orders, and international accords (Oslo), preservation and protection of cultural heritage in Palestine can only be considered fractured and inconsistent. Bshara (2013: 299) suggests that after over two decades since Oslo, there remains no real legal framework in place to protect cultural heritage and very few government initiatives to preserve and to protect Palestinian resources. Under Oslo, Israel and Palestine pledged to protect and safeguard the cultural heritage from looting, development, and the detrimental effects of tourism. As part of Appendix I, Article II the Israelis provided the Palestinians with a list of specific sites which were deemed by Israeli negotiators to have particular archaeological and historical importance—mostly synagogue remains and tombs, sites relating specifically to Judaism. Under the Oslo II provisions, a joint committee (comprising Palestinian and Israeli cultural heritage professionals) would be established to deal with archaeological issues of common interest. This committee would also keep each other abreast of archaeological discoveries and disseminate the results of excavations through publication, publications and online, ensuring access for all. Each agreed to respect sites holy to the various religions of the area. To date, few to none of these aims have been implemented. The now largely aborted peace process and the complex legislative legacies leave cultural heritage sites caught in the middle of this failed agreement (Cavanaugh, 2002–2003; Rynhold, 2008). Since the phased handover of Area C has not occurred, the archaeological sites in this area (some 60% of cultural heritage sites in the West Bank, numbering in the thousands) are governed by the Civil Administration of Israel, the Jordanian Temporary Law no. 51, 1966, and the Israeli military order no. 1166 of 1986. Area C remains in the control of the Israeli Archaeological Department of the Civil Administration (ADCA). The oversight and management of cultural heritage in Palestine is truncated by the attempted post-colonial condition created by the Oslo agreements and current Israeli occupation (see Bshara, 2013; Pratt, 2013). In an ideal world, Palestine should now be in control of the archaeological sites within its territorial boundaries. Since the Oslo Agreements, in Areas A and B the Palestinian Department of Antiquities and Cultural Heritage (DACH) has carried out over 600 salvage excavations and joint projects with North American and European partners at sites like Khirbet Bal’ama, Tell Balata, Tell el-Ajjul, Tell es-Sultan, and Khirbet el-Mafjar in Jericho. The DACH routinely issues permits to Palestinian archaeologists from Birzeit University and Al-Quds University to carry out archaeological investigations. At the national level, the government and its agents are focused on the acquisition of World Heritage status for the natural and cultural sites of Palestine, which may be to the detriment of smaller sites not deemed of ‘‘outstanding universal value’’ (Bshara, 2013; De Cesari, 2010c). At the same ...